Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sledgehammer_77 t1_j4pqb11 wrote

Reply to comment by Smolenski in Runaway W. Antarctic ice sheet collapse not 'inevitable': study by EagleEyeStx

So it's inevitable.

251

johnn48 t1_j4psi3d wrote

>Other suggestions have included constructing Eiffel Tower-sized columns on the seabed to prop it up from below, and a 100m-tall, 100-kilometre-long berm to block warm water flowing underneath.

Not really look at these great ideas, in addition how about the snow cannon one. I’m sure we can get started on constructing the Eiffel tower column’s right away. It’s "super easy, barely an inconvenience".

85

2005HondaCivic245 t1_j4qqa54 wrote

We'd rather waste millions on eiffel tower sized support columns than lose a tiny bit of profit to save the fucking world. We are fucked and we deserve it

39

KadeTheTrickster t1_j4r7sll wrote

>we deserve it

Non human animals and people who would rather save the planet over their wallet. "What's this we shit?"

25

IamMe90 t1_j4qqj1r wrote

>It’s "super easy, barely an inconvenience".

Is this a reference to Pitch Meeting? If so love it lol

6

johnn48 t1_j4qv2v9 wrote

Runaway W. Antarctic Ice Sheet Pitch Meeting 🤦🏻‍♂️

2

Lets_Kick_Some_Ice t1_j4qrfw5 wrote

How ironic that we would prop it up with jack stands.

2

agolec t1_j4vdwwl wrote

Someone needs to retroactively change the futurama "dunk a giant ice cube into the arctic" joke to this.

1

nickeypants t1_j4sfhr0 wrote

I just leave my air conditioner on and pointed outside. I'm doing my part!

1

agolec t1_j4vdz48 wrote

RIP you b/c fumes. Thank you for your service.

1

SilverNicktail t1_j4r5cmz wrote

Given that emissions are set to peak in the next few years and are in fact decreasing in most developed areas (at admittedly very differing rates), not necessarily.

11

sledgehammer_77 t1_j4rc849 wrote

I wish I had your optimism

3

agolec t1_j4veeyt wrote

Same. The fact that this is all operating under geological timescales is what messes with my head and makes me kind of pessimistic.

2

[deleted] t1_j4qyyeg wrote

No.

Look at the ridiculously good progress in renewable energy over the past decade. It's only accelerating.

We will hit peak fossil-fuel use globally during this decade, because renewables are becoming cheaper than burning coal/oil/gas.

9

universepower t1_j4rnryz wrote

Thank you. So many people are all “nothing is being done, life sucks” but the reality is heckloads is being/has been done

10

PhiloPhys t1_j4rskwd wrote

Those many people are absolutely correct. We are essentially taking 0 action at the present moment. Atmospheric CO2 represents only one of 7 planetary boundaries that spell our destruction. We’ve arguably crossed 4-6 of them already and nothing is being done about most of them.

More deforestation, habitat loss, resource use, and energy use are happening than ever before. We’re still building new car and fossil infrastructure which will cement use of those institutions for 40+ more years.

There is hope and we can do something. But, presently we are essentially doing nothing.

We will not green technology our way out of this. We need system level change.

4

universepower t1_j4rwlwn wrote

Pretty much everywhere has systemic changes in place, and CO2 growth has slowed dramatically in the last decade. I’m not saying do nothing, but having a huge sad about how nothing has changed is wrong.

6

PhiloPhys t1_j4rrwwi wrote

Wrong. Decoupling is not happening. Production is increasing with the new energy sources which is extremely bad. We’re using more fuel and more renewable energy simultaneously. That means we’re stripping more raw resources from the earth than ever, deforesting more, displacing more creatures, and driving our planet to the brink.

Renewables are not a silver bullet. They are only a tiny piece of an actual solution. We are not doing anything that needs to be done.

Putting all our belief in renewables as a solution is just capitalism reskinned as green.

Edit: that’s not to say all hope is lost. There are still beautiful futures.

0

garry4321 t1_j4qmpzv wrote

Didnt you hear? We got rid of plastic straws, that fixed things.

We also got rid of those thin grocery bags that you could re-use as garbage bags. Now we have THICC grocery bags that have hundreds of times more plastic, but break down in a few dozen uses, and truly single use purchasable small garbage bags instead. THAT FIXED THINGS

2

stayzuplate t1_j4r6udj wrote

I don't think you're using your re-usable shopping bags correctly.

I have a grocery store bag made from recycled plastic bottles that I've been using for over 10 years and it's still going strong.

4

garry4321 t1_j4sflph wrote

Im sure that is the majority of the people then, because you have a single anecdote. The need to buy single use, overbuilt small garbage bags alone is more plastic. The reusable bags are really shit and more than double the plastic use. Ask Glad (plastic bag manufacturers) if they support the grocery bag ban. I would put money on them actually lobbying for it.

Not only was it not even close to 1% of the issue, it doesnt solve anything.

For those downvoting me, how about disputing these facts rather than getting upset that you believed the lie that you were a earth saviour by using thick garbage bags for 2 purposes instead of the thinnest possible garbage bags for both.

−2

stayzuplate t1_j4shyct wrote

Your single anecdote that reusable bags only last a dozen uses is total bullshit, and their use actual decreases the demand and usage of single use plastic bags. Are you too cheap to buy a good one?

Also, there are many reusable shopping bag options that aren't made of plastic.

2

garry4321 t1_j4tpt7c wrote

None of which are Better for the environment. Paper bags have been found to be worse for the environment.

Face it, the thinnest possible plastic bags that can be re-used are the best option at this time.

−1

stayzuplate t1_j4tszma wrote

Says who? Please site your evidence that durable re-usable bags are not better for the environment.

So a reusable canvas bag is worse than the environment than single use plastic bags? Right.

So are you one of those people who just can't be bothered to own a reusable bag? The convenience of that sweet single use plastic is just so vital for you?

2

Hensot t1_j6b0rri wrote

No, It's not. There is a difference between physical inevitability and politically unlikely. Your reply seems harmful and unhelpful at best.

1

sledgehammer_77 t1_j6bbvfp wrote

Politics have nothing to do with it, its more economical & societal aspects.

Capitalism over everything else.

1

Hensot t1_j6crdrd wrote

"Politics have nothing to do with it" I'm not an expert, but the last time I checked, Politics was an essential pillar of climate progress & without it, We wouldn't see any progress. Current policies leads to about ~2.6-2.7C & Current pledges may limit warming below 2C. But, I'm far more interested in your statement "So, It's inevitable"

1