• shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The last time I checked, we don’t have a whole lot of climate solutions that feature the bomb. And I’d be doing myself a disservice… and every member of this species, if I didn’t nuke the HELL out of this!

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m pulling for artificial diamonds. It’s the funniest solution: dumping truckloads of precious gemstones back down empty wells. Or burying them in the desert. Or I guess just handing them out for industrial uses, since even grinding them to dust isn’t the same problem as CO2. Have a free bucket of aquarium gravel, made out of worthless tacky gold.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hey, if you can make diamond that easily, we can exchange a LOT of substances for it. Not just windows and glasses, but pretty much every ceramic object, insulators, but also just toilets (slap some paint on it and done).

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean… if we’re being honest, the long-term effects of global thermonuclear war would be (very eventual) carbon sequestration in tens to hundreds of millions of years, and then we’ll renew our oil reserves! We of course won’t be around to use them, seeing as we’ll have been sequestered into the oil.

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Can we get new oil actually? I thought we now have organisms that can break down every organic matter and thus it can not really accumulate anymore?

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        There’s an abiotic pathway that creates new oil geologically. It’s a very small amount.

        The theory is popular in Russia, where it’s claimed to be the main way oil is produced. That’s complete bullshit. It turned out there is some, but not enough to matter.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oil actually comes from aquatic life (mostly plankton) that sinks to the sea floor and gets buried, squeezed and heated. Oil still forms today, but it’s a process of millions of years.

        Coal is formed from plants, and that does indeed require something doesn’t eat it first. Swamps, for example, help a lot, letting the fallen trees sink down where most stuff can’t eat it. Peat can also form into coal. Coal forms even slower than oil though, and it’s much rarer, but it also doesn’t require an ocean, so it’s often more accessible for us land-living humans

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Coal is much rarer than oil? I have to look that up, I always thought there is far more coal.

          Nope, there is about 3x more coal than oil.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            IIRC, all that coal comes from plant material from before there were microbes that can break down cellulose. Meaning that while it’s possible to regenerate oil over millions of years, coal cannot.

            So yes, there may be more of it now, but when we burn it, it’s gone forever.

      • FoolishObserver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        No: this was about how the US Government considered underground nuking Alaska for the coal, killing cattle to check for cancer, and having people believe it was aliens. I was at work, so I may have missed a few points, but there was a discussion on power via turbine powered by nuclear weapon melted salt.

        Re-naming all the Great Lakes to Lake America (with the easy to remember acronym “AAAAA!”) was one of the late night shows.

  • smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Every proposal to save the world ultimately comes back to the plot of The Core

    • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I have a similar modest proposal to solving the wealth inequality hoarding problem of billionaires

      • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Someone needs to work out the inheritance fallout. With our luck it will still fall within the same families, or the government.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Government is fine. Remember money is just IOUs from the government, if billionaires assets were sold and the money went to government it would be deflationary, all money in circulation would become more valuable

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This is by far the most practical “geoengineering” solution I’ve seen, far better than aerosols over the arctic, space shades or whatever. The ecological damage is comparatively miniscules.

    And even then… quite a engineering feat. Nukes are actually “cheap” to scale up (a small bomb can catalyze big, cheap cores), but burying that much volume “3-5 km into the basalt-rich seafloor” is not something anyone is set-up to do.

    But by far the hardest part is… information. Much of the world doesn’t even believe in climate change anymore, and by the time they do, it will be too late.