this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1095 points (97.2% liked)

solarpunk memes

2736 readers
273 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 207 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

Inaccurate statement.

https://qz.com/2113243/forty-percent-of-all-shipping-cargo-consists-of-fossil-fuels

40% of traffic is for petrochemicals, which according to this article is coal, oil, gas, and things derived from them, which would include fertilizer and plastics and probably some other stuff too like industrial lubricants, asphalt etc. Not just fossil fuels, so not all that 40% would be affected by a switch to renewable energy. It's also worth noting that building out renewable energy generation involves shipping a lot of hardware around the globe as well.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Industrial lubricants and asphalt fit my definition of petrochemicals

But then so do plastics

[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Right that's what I'm saying though- they wouldn't be affected by switching away from fossil fuels

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

That last sentence, yep. People don't tend to factor in the carbon footprint of building anything they deem environmentally friendly. There's a cost/benefit analysis to be made. A bad idea may actually be worse than what it's replacing, or not beneficial enough to pursue.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 45 points 1 week ago (4 children)

There may be carbon emitted in creating green energy but green energy is ultimately reducing demand for hydrocarbons, which is better than sequestration. Also you need to factor into the operational life of the green tech. If you do, it's pretty clear pretty fast that it's beneficial to go with green energy options. The argument you're making is a common strawman argument for not investing in green energy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] superkret@feddit.org 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

For all the things you think of when you hear "renewables", that analysis has already been made, and it's overwhelmingly better in every way to ditch fossil fuels.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 112 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Joke's on you when we get even more ships sending the sun and wind around the world, idiot.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago

Funnily that isn't a bad description of shipping green hydrogen

[–] SidewaysHighways@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago

Fuckin demolished that snowflake. With climate change

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 74 points 1 week ago

Bro just ignoring all the ships we'll need to carry all that wind and sunlight

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 62 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Another way to look at it: the shipping industry will take a beating while everyone transitions.

If anyone is left wondering why there's so much institutional resistance to changing our energy diet, its institutions like this that are lobbying and generating the propaganda behind it. Energy companies are just one faction.

[–] jdr@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Or they'd just ship something else? They'd lose some money and scrap a few ships, but the drop in costs would make it more economical to ship whatever else people want, like lumber and funko pops.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago

Hydrogen too. There's a massive solar farm in Australia's Northern Territory entirely dedicated to green hydrogen production for export to Asia

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Good lord I hate Funko Pops. Them and Minions™ are are the false idols of consumerism.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 10 points 1 week ago

Funko Pops are just Precious Moments for millennials.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mostdubious@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

the biggest resistance is coming from the owner class. the great fear is that we could enter into an age where human labor isn't needed and it becomes feasible to have a society where resources just get distributed for free because everything* is* practically free.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago (4 children)

If we switched to renewable energy, the cost of coal and oil would crash, but it wouldn't drop to zero. Wealthier countries would stop producing oil locally and shipments would still circle the globe from countries desperate enough to keep producing at lower profits, to countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.

That's not a reason not to switch. We just need to be prepared for the reality that no single solution will resolve all our problems. Conservatives and energy barons will fight tooth and nail, and will point to the new problems as evidence that we never should have switched. was

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure

This presumes renewables are more expensive. But I would posit that a rapid adoption of renewables is going to occur as the cost of operating - say - a thorium powered container ship falls below that of its coal equivalents.

What I would be worried about, long term, is the possibility that advanced technologies further monopolize industries within a handful of early adopter countries. That's not an ecological concern so much as a socio-economic concern.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

a thorium powered container ship

If the experience of the NS Savannah is anything to go by, the major hurdle that ship is going to face is Greenpeace etc. fomenting irrational anti-nuclear hysteria until it's banned from so many ports that it'll be too difficult to operate it profitably. I hope I'm wrong and I wish them luck.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)

Fun vaguely related fact: the 1800s are often hailed as the century of steamships, but in reality steamships had pretty short range and required frequent re-coaling in order to get anywhere and back. The coaling stations around the world were mostly stocked by sailing ships since there was no way to economically transport coal by using vessels that burned coal for their propulsion. So it's more accurate to say that the worldwide transportation revolution of the 1800s was a steam/wind power hybrid.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Why don't we just have one or two very big ships, powered by nuclear reactors. Like, 40-50 kilometers long each, with hydrofoils, top speed just under mach one. Zip around and deliver everyone's shit with big deck-mounted gauss guns that fire packages right to your doorstep as the ship screams past the nearest coastline.

[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

I see no setting where this could go horribly wrong.

[–] aquafunk@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Im gonna need some concept art first. for research puposes

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Currently seeking angel investors for 500m buy-in, or I'll take a 200kg of plutonium, if you've got that.

Good god, the stress that would be on the hydrofoil's connecting pieces makes my meager mind whimper.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

Thats exactly how I want my buttplug delivered - shot via a rail gun directly at it's destination.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›