When I read the first part, I thought “which megacorporation?”

Renewable energy is better: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1038/s41560-020-00696-3

However, this is still progress.

https://grist.org/climate-energy/no-climate-change-wont-kill-the-planet-but-itll-kill-plenty-of-people/

Yes, renewable energy is better: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1038/s41560-020-00696-3

However, declaring nuclear energy illegal means destroying functioning power plants that have very low emissions. We should wait to destroy nuclear energy until we can replace it with renewable energy, and we should not be having to replace nuclear energy until we’ve replaced fossil fuels and biofuel.

EDIT: Basically, we should start out by getting rid of* what is most polluting (agriculture/industry emissions), and then working our way down from there (coal, natural gas, oil, biofuel, and nuclear, in that order).

*Agriculture emissions can be offset by transitioning to a more vegan diet. I don’t call it plant-based because that excludes fungi and bacteria that we also consume.

I agree to everything you just said. It appears like someone else already discussed what I said in a comment thread below, so I apologize for bringing it up again.

EDIT: What I meant by agreeing with you was that I agree that climate change will not be solved with nuclear or renewables alone. I did not mean that using nuclear energy and renewable energy does not have any effect on solving climate change.

I am fine with nuclear energy as a temporary solution since climate change is such a big problem, and we need all we have to deal with it. Once that problem is dealt with, then we can continue to ramp up low-emissions renewable energy. I think we should wait to declare nuclear illegal until climate change is solved.

It’s especially bad when open source projects use a proprietary service like Discord.

Network effect, basically.

I wonder why Exxon has been denying climate change /s https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to have emissions peak in 3 years if we want to cut it in half in 7. We just need to actually do it.

https://libreddit.spike.codes/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/rqg2y0/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/

While it is generally true that completely free* providers make money off of your personal data, some of them are run by not for profits and are funded by donations. An example of this is disroot.org.

*As in, not freemium

Renewable energy has little to no pollution. EDIT: Excluding biofuel which is not a solution to pollution or climate change.

Yes, if you are looking at all forms of pollution, you are indeed correct, as all life forms have to excrete waste. An extreme example of this is cyanobacteria likely causing a mass extinction.

However, I was referring to air particulate pollution, as shown by my source. I apologize for not being clearer. I have updated the original comment, but yes, you are indeed correct that all human cultures and ideologies have pollution at their core if you are looking at pollution in general.

Every Western country government helped cause the rapid climate change emergency we’re in, so screw them, and especially the oil companies that spread lies about the severity of rapid climate change for decades. EDIT: Same for China’s government, Russia’s government, etc. Anyone still using fossil fuels, really.

Alternate solution: stop relying on oil

Rapid climate change is continuing to get worse

The FSF uses nonfree social media sometimes to get new people into free software: https://www.fsf.org/twitter Of course, many free software projects likely don’t use social media for that purpose.

There were two economic systems in countries that industrialized: soviet-type socialism (where the means of production are controlled by a state) and capitalism (where the means of production are controlled by corporations). Of the countries with soviet-type socialism, none of them are democratic. This effectively means that none of the countries that industrialized had a means of production controlled by the community. While all human cultures and ideologies could very well have pollution at their core, we do not know this is true. I think the problem is that the rich can deal with pollution and the poor cannot. Since the poor outnumber the rich, with the poor actually in control, maybe pollution can be solved. This might not be the case, but we will not know unless we try.

I never said that. All I said was that under capitalism, millions of people die from pollution, which is true.

EDIT: Here is my source: https://doi.pangea.de/10.1038/s41467-021-26348-y

EDIT 2: This statement as written is not true, and the source does not mention anything about pollution in general. However, if I instead said that “millions of people die from air particulate pollution,” then I believe that statement would be true.

Not to mention the millions of people who die from pollution. EDIT: By this I meant air particulate pollution. If you are looking at pollution in general, this is caused by all life forms. The comments below were referring to the claim above as it was originally stated.

That is a good step towards both mitigating and adapting to rapid climate change (stacked farming means less forest needs to be cleared). Of course, the main issue is still fossil fuels.