22
I mean, they might be against it for the wrong reasons, but it would be better if we tried to fix the climate without aerosol…
Agreed geoengineering is bad science/engineering IMO. You can't know what the long term effects would be until after its been deployed. The safest bet would be to just ditch fossil fuels but that's not as sexy.
Also, we already have examples of tech bros creating a business where companies pay them to offset their carbon footprint by shooting unknown chemicals of unknown quantities into the upper atmosphere.
We had chemtrails for so long that at.thia point getting 'fogged' will change absolutely nothing now that all the frogs are gay.
They're trying to make this the new recycling aren't they... Pitching an idea that seemingly would work, and feels like we're doing something without actually addressing the problem
When the media starts over focusing on something odd, it's because billionaires have an agenda
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
22 points (89.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5240 readers
558 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS