this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
132 points (94.0% liked)

Asklemmy

44276 readers
713 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Send it to me, I’ll grow some trees and hemp and shit.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Buy second hand, don't buy new unless you know that the company is trying to solve climate change. Example, at Honolulu there's a company that is setting up water filling stations on some hotels and providing these hotels with aluminum bottles for the folks staying in the hotel so hotels can provide water to their guests and stop plastic pollution.

[–] Viri4thus@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago

Well, a certain cadre of income is responsible for the lion's share of western emissions. Maybe you could use that money to "influence" them.

[–] POTOOOOOOOO@reddthat.com 3 points 3 days ago

Probably planting trees as effectively it's free to scatter seeds you find.

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

Plant a fuckload of protected species trees

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Wont have much impact unfortunately. Climate zones are shifting already, those trees will die before growing up because they would belong further north by then.

[–] ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

But do your research or better find an organization who did the research, can be trusted to know what they’re doing and makes sure to protect the trees afterwards. Just planting random trees somewhere is not necessarily going to help. It could even make things worse for that area.

[–] Beetle@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Donate to an indigenous community

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago

This is probably the most impact you can have with that little.

Put that money in stocks or ETFs that align with your climate goals. You don’t even have to dig too deep to find ones that meet your needs. Much digital ink has been spilled on the topic. Just find one or two you like and go for it.

In a general sense, put the money where you want change to happen in this version of reality.

[–] xilliah@beehaw.org 2 points 3 days ago

Put it in a bank that doesn't invest your money into the wrong stuff. In fact a bank can loan more money than it has, but there's a ratio set by law. So for example that could effectively be 30k in arbitrary investments.

If you want to spend it, I'd buy a good bicycle or get my home isolated or sum like that. You could get cooking lessons and proper cookware and stay away from processed foods that generate tons of waste. If you have the space you could grow your own vegetables and have chickens, which eat bio waste. Basically reduce what you buy. You could get tools and learn how to fix things if that's more up your alley. For example I've fixed my Sennheiser headphones several times, but it did need some investment in tools. You could also donate it to a repair cafΓ©.

Get a vasotomy/tubal ligation.

[–] sga@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Start a fund raiser, do advertisement, (make some donations your self so that it does not look dead) - ones you get a lot of money (lets say you have doubled) - start again and repeat until you double - within 10 cycles of doublings, you reach 10 million, and keep doing until you get rich enough (lets say 10 more cycles to reach 10B) then you have 2 paths to choose - either be a hero and actual invest in research and actively reversing shit done, maybe helping displaced or other good deeds, or the mlm path, and continue the doubling cycle, keep earning - with this much money, you can now have actors and fake donations, maybe even fake researches into how you are helping, and keep growing your wealth, and maybe then escape to a tax heaven.

Apologies for the dystopian ending, but realistically a person even going full carbon negative is not even a dent. If you actually want to do good, then you realistically require trillions, and then you feed that money to politicians, and reverse launder your way towards actual green solutions.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 1 points 3 days ago

Not 10k but I would figure something out with 100k

[–] rekabis@programming.dev -3 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Fund a sterilization program for young people who have come to understand the future that humanity is hurtling towards, and who want to avoid bringing a child into such a brutally cruel future.

Both my niece and nephew have sworn off of children, as they have good educations and have fully understood just how badly humanity is fucking itself over. They’re just trying to find doctors that will do those procedures on people under 30.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Humanity may be fucking itself over, but how does that lead you to conclude that taking yourself out is (part) of a solution?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Really good idea. Rid the world of enviromnetally responsible people so climate change is accelerated. Thanks for the counter-argument.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I'd probably donate it to the Thorium guys. Either the ones that just built the reactor research lab in Texas, or the shipyard ones. If coal becomes economically obsolete, the gigatons of CO2 will drop off like a rock.

[–] hungrybread@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

From what I understand nuclear in general is (at least now) a dead end as a climate change solution.

  1. From planning time to turning on the reactor is something like 15 - 20 years (note, that's longer than the global average of 7 years for construction, because construction is not the whole picture)
  2. It's difficult to have more than 1 plant project ongoing simultaneously due to the scale and complexity
  3. Nuclear plants take a lot of C02 to construct and maintain. The fuel has to be mined, resulting in emissions, and the amount of concrete required massive. 1 ton of concrete creates .8-.9 tons of C02, and a nuclear power plant has hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in it.
  4. We still don't have a good answer for handling nuclear waste.

Maybe at some point in the past nuclear could have resolved many climate change issues, but between project time, initial emission cost, and waste, it just doesn't seem viable anymore.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee -2 points 3 days ago

Become a shareholder for one of the many giant corporations responsible, and try to sway them into cleaning thier mess up.

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί