326
Why has the world started to mine coal again? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
312 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?

Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I thought net zero meant there was no net co2 being emitted at any time? This is saying countries can claim net zero by just promising to remove co2 in the future. I've never seen it used that way, is that the common understanding?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The way people get to net zero is stupid accounting tricks. I burned a whole bunch of coal, but i paid a buddy of mine to plant trees. So now Im celebrating net zero with my buddy in his brand new tesla roadster. Who knew planting trees was so lucrative.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So we need good regulation to make sure the carbon is being sequestered. If planting trees and then burying them actually gets carbon permanently out of the atmosphere, I'm all for it. I would love planting trees to be lucrative, we could use more forests, they're great!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

    No one is actually burying trees. What happens is that after the contract ends they can just cut down the trees, release the carbon and start again.

    I do agree with better regulation but forrestry ones should just go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago

    Oh I just remembered, someone who worked at an arboretum who I met a while ago mentioned that trees actually diffuse carbon dioxide directly into the soil. I think he said it was about one third of the weight of the tree? That amount would still be sequestered even if the tree wasn't buried. But I don't know how stable that is over the long term.

    For offsets to work, they'd need to be based on the actual science of how much carbon they trap over what period of time. Different methods would need to have offset values published by the government. But I agree, offsets with algie or similar look much more feasible than trees.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago

    paid a buddy of mine to plant trees.

    It's actually worse than that they are paying people to not cut down trees. It's the same logic when my GF says she saved $200 because the dress was half price.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's a lie because several of the dependent solutions are essentially impossible to achieve (given time, technology, resources, investment, economics, etc), as well as being the bare minimum necessary to avert disaster, with a deadline decades after it's required to avert disaster.

    Read the link to understand why.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •