this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
184 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59192 readers
2389 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Reality_Suit@lemmy.one 30 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Not polluting where we live would also work too, but fuck that.

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No trees have a far bigger impact than reducing pollution. They draw moisture out of deep under ground and react with sunlight, evaporating the water which significantly cools the air down. On top of that it also creates shade. Both, combined, have a massive local impact on the climate - it's orders of magnitude more powerful than all the world's carbon emissions (if you are near the tree, anyway).

If you compare the air temperature in a city to surrounding countryside full of trees it is always significantly hotter and drier in the city. That's not pollution, it's a lack of trees.

Trees also directly release trace amounts of "sesquiterpenes" into the air which causes water to condense... in other words trees directly increase the number of clouds and directly increase rainfall. So even though they're pulling water out of the ground they also increase the amount of water in the ground.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's not really an either/or situation.

[–] Reality_Suit@lemmy.one 2 points 10 months ago

Industry is lazy and demands a profit. We could absolutely have advanced technology, a robust industry, and a thriving planet, but rich people need to make as much money as fast as possible.

We don't even need to stop polluting , just stop polluting at the levels we do.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Let’s not pollute anywhere 😎

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Nah let’s pollute Pluto, we could even call it Polluto as we laugh at its lack of planetary status.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Hahahahahahaha you're a fucking genius friend

[–] Fermion@mander.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

This sounds like it could be a Futurama plot point, like the trash asteroid.

[–] 768@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago

You cannot really unpollute albedo, this is a built environment issue.

[–] Nuerion@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago

Trees doesn’t rhyme with Celsius.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That image is exemplary of what we call a "Zementwüste", a cement desert.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Yes and it can be fixed.