this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
396 points (96.5% liked)

Not The Onion

18556 readers
1361 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

yeah, sure, but have any of the other carbon sequestration technologies proven more efficient while being equally scalable?

[–] IMALlama@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Oh, I wasn't trying to say trees can't help. I was only saying that we also need to go on a massive carbon diet.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Technologies? No. But the oceans are 42x better at sequestering carbon than the surface, and there are some pretty interesting ideas around promoting phytoplankton blooms and kicking the ocean currents up, that sort of thing.

But trees are rad. We should absolutely have more of them. Besides, they're proven, as you noted.

[–] axx@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

But really, humans have to stop emitting as much CO2eq. That's it. There is no magic sciencey solution.

For a starts, we need to shut down all coal mines and power factories, stop oil, reduce animal exploitation as much as possible, stop fast fashion and reduce AI to scientific uses.

Nothing here is new or controversial, it's just a bit boring, difficult, and goes against massive entrenched interests. That's the hard part.

But any approach that is banking on technological breakthroughs maybe helping us capture all the CO2 (and methane, and nitrous oxide, and…) is inane.

[–] FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Once more for the people in the back:

=>AI only for science.<=

Slop isn’t adding ANY value to life on earth.

Get rid of it.

[–] axx@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

AI is not all GenAI and LLMs, I hope you know.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think there's argument about whether or not even that's enough.

[–] axx@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

Yes, that's the minimum :)