Maybe, I really don’t know. Do you perhaps have a relevant tutorial to share?

I’m not too sure if I missed it, but what’s the budget for this?

I only know that it is both casually used as a park and that they are also regularly doing stuff there.

Thanx!

I don’t have access to this articles, I get a paywall after a few sentences. Same with the archive link. Any ideas how to access it without a subscription?

I am not too sure I understand what your objection to this article is. Ok gas is considered sustainable under some conditions. This doesn’t seen to me like something contradicting that the EU Court ruling on Taxonomy sets a dangerous precedent. For me this is the point.

Did I get something wrong?

If I get you correctly, I totally agree with what you say. I didn’t like the tone of this article in the sense that it presents it ok to clear out forest for solar panels, and personally I believe it’s criminal, or something. I just thought it had some important info.

Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify where I stand on this and I will edit the post to reflect this.

Anything I suppose, this is why I’m asking.

I could be no, don’t cut the trees, or no, don’t talk bad about solar energy expansion, or… you name it! No?

Meaning?

I believe when we talk about emission related to the US we shouldn’t take into account only the emissions inside the country, but also those created by the US elsewhere, from its military for example. And this is a problem that dates way back, long before the last couple of elections.

The US military’s carbon footprint is mind-bogglingly big. Here’s how they could cut it | BBC Science Focus

The US military is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases of any institution on Earth, generating an estimated 636 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent (a standardised measure of greenhouse gas emissions) between 2010 and 2019.

If it were a country, this would make the US military rank 47th globally in emissions, ahead of nations like Sweden and Portugal.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. These figures only include what’s known (…)

But accounting for global military emissions is a tricky business. Because the reporting is voluntary

This is definately a project to keep an eye out and see how it goes.

If I got this right, the floaters were placed incide the breakwater. So, how can they estimate the impact on the actual marine life of the area (plants, fish, their migration routes, marine mammals etc), meaning outside the breakwater, where the positioning is optimal.

If we consider the the term triple planetary crisis to be a valid one, then we cannot exclude the impact on the local biodiversity and ecosystems of the green energy projects, for example. It looks like in this article they are not even mentioned.

Hmm I’m not totally sure that it is something you exactly find first and deploy after. Of course there are a tone of things to read, discuss etc but I have the impression that you find some parameters and then it’s a trial and error process. Maybe.

Sometimes there are already people doing stuff like that near you. In a squat or a non-hierarchical collective nearby? Sometimes these collectives do not exist in our area, so maybe try to find other people with similar interests close to where you live and start something all together? As it says in the article:

It doesn’t matter how small you start, just start and see how it grows.

I dunno. From my experience in doing similar stuff for the first time I learned something else. Long story short, the things I imagined or feared etc, had nothing to do with what happened in reality. And doing the project felt great also because it opened the door to new kinds of interactions with other people.

I’m not trying to be lovey-dovey or something. With time, challenges emerged, some tough, some easy and badly handled, you name it! But what you describe reminded me of some of my “fears” before starting a project for the first time, this is why I thought of mentioning the above.

Could also go “I have plants”?

This is a terrible meme on so many levels, perhaps all of them. I mean, even with the /s

Ah ok, thank you for clarifying that!

This discussion has fundamentally very little to do with the energy transition and is more generally about destructive mining practices

What is called energy transition (I believe energy addition is a more accurate term) needs several elements that come from mining. So I am not sure I understand why you consider that mining should not be part of the conversation, since it is a necessary step.

Btw I think I don’t understand what you mean with your last sentence.

Thank you so much. Doing this immediately!

Maybe I should have specified that where I live it’s summer now, so windows are always open and will be so for many more weeks. Meaning, releasing it outside would not prevent it from coming back in.

Of course, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

As long as it is implemented within capitalism, it will never be neutral. Capitalism is destructive because it exhausts all natural resources and disregards all living creatures and ecosystems, for the sake of monetary profit and infinite economic growth. All these, on a finite planet. Clearly, eternal growth is a cancerous way of development, and it has nothing to do with sustainability.