For me, there are to many “ifs” and assumptions in this hypothesis.

Copy-pasting here my comment to this article from another community:

Carbon Capture and Storage/Sequestration (CCS) is a topic I changed my mind about, not that long ago, including its subsets like Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Direct Air Capture (DAC), etc. Up to last year or something, I was thinking that it’s important for these kind of tech to be researched.

Now I see things differently:

• To my understanding, the only CCS tech that makes sense is the one that catches emissions at the source, the factory chimneys.

• The others that claim to suck up GHG and store them “out of sight out of mind” are highly problematic for so many reasons. They are distractions from the real issue which is phasing out fossil fuel.

A few relevant links:

Fact or fantasy? Can carbon dioxide removal save the climate?

For fossil fuel corporations, keeping CDR on the agenda as a credible climate change solution is a Get Out of Jail Free card. Instead of stopping emissions, they promise to capture and bury them. Not now, but someday. As the CEO of Occidental Petroleum told a conference of her peers in 2023, “We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time. This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.”[

Climeworks’ capture fails to cover its own emissions

The car­bon capt­ure comp­any Cli­meworks on­ly capt­ur­es a fracti­on of the CO2 it promises its machines can capt­ure. The comp­any is fail­ing to car­bon off­set the em­issi­ons resulting from its operati­ons – which have grown rapidly in recent ye­ars.

More articles in the relevant community:
[email protected]

Your comment reminded me of a recent article from Carbon Brief:

Experts: Which climate tipping point is the most concerning?

For socialism in the context of the so-called communist countries, I agree with you.

For socialism in the context of the nordic model, I am not sure because I am not well informed about how they have handled nuclear power.

Edit: Regardless of the past, it’s capitalism that has prevailed globally for now, so currently this is what we have to deal with.

The way I see things, the unsafe part is more related to how capitalism works, more than anything else. Capitalism is not a safe system.

Super-briefly, time and money related to: planning, maintenance, decommissioning, and last but not least, nuclear waste.

Imo and due to climate emergency, we’d be better putting the money that would go for nuclear towards renewables. Let’s keep in mind that numerous nuclear projects were funded with enormous amounts of money for 10-20 years, to be abandoned before producing any electricity.

Just a few relevant links:

• Why Nuclear Maintenance Equipment Requires a Single-Source Solution
• Dismantling work begins at Hamaoka nuclear plant
• Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia

It’s a buy your right to pollute scheme.

To my understanding, the overwhelmingly vast majority of carbon offsets and carbon credits are at best ineffective or at worst just scams. Consequently, they lead to more emissions and are used to delay the phasing out of fossil fuels.

I don’t think I understand why you say that the author is assuming 5% of GDP goes towards making guns, since they talk throughout the article about military expenditure and military spending, which are much broader terms.

Of course, it’s not normal for such high temperatures so early in the summer, or for them to occur more and more often. I’m not implying we are used to climate change, just that we are used to much hotter weather than other people.

I could say it depends on what one is used to. For example, yesterday the temperature here was 37°C, and the app was saying Real feel 40.6°C. We get 29°C only at night and it feels almost like a breeze. And the tough part of the summer isn’t here yet.

If you look into the article, when this is mentioned, there is a relevant link. I think it is worth taking a look at it, because it gives perspective on this topic. Actually, a few, not only one.

The countries with the biggest skews in favour of boys in sex ratios at birth have seen a reversion towards the natural rate.

In a handful of places, the overall birth statistics appear to reflect a preference for girls over boys.

But in most countries, any preference for girls expressed in polls is not strong enough to show in the overall sex ratio at birth. Most parents-to-be seem to balk at sex-selective abortions, in other words.

The assumption that daughters will be more nurturing whereas sons will grow distant is ingrained even in the most egalitarian societies.

Edit: I rewrote the comment, when I realised there are a few links in the article that clarify things

[…] boys will be aborted and neglected in favour of girls

It’s the first time I hear about this. Any relevant links you could share that corroborate this take?

In that case, adding /s at the end of the comment helps a lot to clarify its tone

Farmer suicides have a long history in India

Dammit, very long indeed. It seems thatnearly 4,00,000 farmers committed suicide in India between 1995 and 2018. This translates into approximately 48 suicides every day..