Honestly, fair enough. I guess part of me sharing that thought was because I recognised it was pretty drenched in schadenfreude, and was interested to see what people thought.
The last thing I really want is more disastrous weather to occur. Bring back the 1 every 100 year disasters I say.
Yeah I'm at the point of life where a lot of my friends are having kids and I am terrified for their future, but hate the idea of having to have these kinds of conversations with them because they deserve to have hope for the future, for their kids future.
But I'm also torn because I think these discussions need to be had if we want people to get active, so we can effect the necessary change in time. And if anyone deserves to truly be angry, its parents.
Am I being crazy thinking that if Australia was reamed by extreme weather this summer it would be better than not, as all the climate change deniers will use non-extreme weather as a 'see the climate isn't warming' argument. At least if this summer was fucked up, they would then have a more difficult time arguing climate change doesn't exist, which could be good timing as extreme weather is still dependant on local and global climate patterns, so there will be a return to less extremes once La Nina returns.
At the same time, more extreme weather is the last thing I want people to have to experience, especially as those who suffer the most from the extreme weather will probably be those least likely to deny climate change.
In summary, I think I'm being a little crazy sitting here hoping shit burns to the ground to prove a point.
Haha yeah, that's less than my yearly rent for my room in a sharehouse.
I guess maybe, a $15k fine might not be high enough if they are willing to keep doing it.
Just another example of a fines being seen as the cost of doing business.
I feel the same for politicians.
If an individual can be done for perjury when on the stand in court, then I think it is reasonable that a similar legal obligation should be placed on our politicians and journalists.
Actually, I think the consequences for a politician or journalist knowingly lying should be far greater than that placed on individuals, because both politicians and journalists have far better access to high quality sources of information than your average citizen, meaning there should be extremely limited grounds for the claim of "I didn't know" or "I was deceived" to be accepted as a reason for them being ignorant of evidence and/or pushing baseless ideologies instead.
I think the reason why the working class continue to undermine themselves (especially people from the older generations) is the main stream media channels (9, 7, sky, any Murdoch newspaper) are owned by billionaires with vested financial interest in getting the working class to vote against their own financial interest, by convincing them it is good for the economy, when really the billionaires consider themselves to be the economy, and what they mean by it will impact the economy is that it will impact them.
This is why those news sources have always actively promoted the LNP, while actively demeaning the Labor party. They don't even need to say any of these things outright, they get away with it by allowing LNP MPs to blame everything wrong on labour while the LNP are the government, but actively promote the LNPs active opposition as good when they aren't in government. This is completely contradictory to how they neg Labor for being an opposition to the LNP when they are in opposition.
Ultimately, they created a cognitive dissonance within the working class to get them to vote against their own interests.
Is this the great Factorio Square spitter massarcre?
I identify as 'meme'
Thanks for the responses, its interesting stuff and seems like a sensible way of trying to reduce emissions and actually capture carbon from the atmosphere.
It makes me think of research that shows that it would make more sense to try and capture carbon from the ocean rather than the atmosphere, as the concentrations are much higher than in the ocean. If we can do this using the natural process of photosynthesis via kelp farms and bio char it could be a very sustainable process.
"THE ocean is the single biggest carbon storage device on Earth,” said Chengxiang ‘CX’ Xiang, CTO and co-founder of direct ocean capture (DOC) company Captura. About 30% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean, where it is 150 times more concentrated volumetrically than in the air.
He said one of the challenges of removing CO2 directly from air is the “really, really, really low” concentration, prompting the need to build large machinery to filter a lot of air. “Leveraging the ocean to do CO2 drawdown for us as we remove CO2 from the ocean water is a unique process that is inherently scalable.”
This is the source I got that quote from: https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/co2-capture-putting-the-sea-into-ccs/
It goes on to talk about how they are working to create tech to capture the carbon, but utilising natural process to achieve the same outcome would be considerably better, though we may need to employ all reasonable methods to decarbonise as quickly as possible.
Sorry for the delayed response.
Could you give me a eli5 on biochar? I've noticed you refer to it in some other posts/comments, including the fire pits story. I'm guessing char stands for charcoal? If that is the case, how does biochar differ from other charcoals.
Also, how is the kelp related to the biochar?
I mean I guess I could google it, but you seem to have a bit of insight to the whole thing that could help one get an understanding.
Oh no, I didn't think it was meant that way. I just took it as hoping for catastrophic weather in the hope it will convince enough people will probably backfire. To which, you are probably correct.