The New York Times will push almost anything except ending the use of fossil fuels — which are the #1 contributor to the warming we're seeing
The New York Times will push almost anything except ending the use of fossil fuels — which are the #1 contributor to the warming we're seeing
13 Comments
MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net · 30 pts · 141d
That butterfly is so big they're gonna have to send out Godzilla to counter it.
Zaktor@sopuli.xyz · 24 pts · 141d
All you'd need to do is build a 50 mile dam. In an area known for intense storms and temperature swings.
Drusas@piefed.social · 10 pts · 141d
And earthquakes!
trailee@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 141d
They don’t even touch on the fight over shutting down what would have by then become a critical shipping lane.
Perhaps NYT has figured out that ending petroleum use will bankrupt the United States via crash of the petrodollar but they are unwilling to write about that because of the panic it would cause.
stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 141d
I strongly suspect our technocrat overlords - the ones telling us global warming is a hoax - know very well that climate change is real, and are manipulating and positioning the United States to come out ahead in the new 3° world.
Not because they care about Americans, of course. But they'll need somewhere to live when the rest of the world collapses, and most of their stuff is here.
The United States damning the Bering Strait would give the United States control over that shipping lane. And recent events have proved how vital the control of shipping lanes can be.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 141d
We are more than capable of building a few locks if we were going to dam the entire thing.
trailee@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 141d
That’s true. It’s more of a political problem than a technical one, sharing control between Russia and Alaska. That Hormuz thing doesn’t inspire a lot of optimism for cooperation. How well will Russia play at all when the intention is to save Europe from debilitating cooling? Shipping arguments would be a distraction, but I’m sure they would be employed.
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 4 pts · 141d
You would need to dam the whole thing, or not even up to sea level, to impact the ocean currents.
The volume of material required would be something though.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 15 pts · 141d
It’s a seismic zone. Besides the fact that geoengineering like this is probably not a great idea.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 14 pts · 141d
Yeah ... and never mind the hundreds of different species you're cutting off from their migration routes. Or all the other possible unintended consequences of this...
criticon@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 141d
But have you stopped to think if it's profitable?
LemmyBruceLeeMarvin@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 141d
This is so Rex Tillerson. We can use capitalist engineering to capitalist engineer our way out of a capitalist caused crisis
fox2263@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 141d
I’m sure Russia would love a bridge to Alaska
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 141d