top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 211 points 1 year ago (74 children)

I wish them well. It feels good to be reminded that yes, there are still people out there trying to make things better. ❤️

  • source
  • hideshow 74 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (58 children)

    Everyone can be that. Stop eating meat and drop water-pollution, land-use and co2-emissions by two thirds. Less destruction, instantly.
    Imagine one billion people doing that. Animal agriculture, one of the most evil industries, would shrink by a lot, our planet would change. No need for politicians, no need to spend a lot of money, no need to lobby. You just buy a different product next time you shop groceries at the supermarket. 💚

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 58 child comments
  • [+] 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (18 children)
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    I really need to stop making excuses and stop eating meat. I think I'm going to start tomorrow. I dunno why but this thread really is motivating me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wouldn't just a reduction in meat consumption be enough? Though looking at how much the average is that will probably need to be a very significant reduction frI'm some people.

    Solar farms go well with grazing animals, recently heard it can actually increase the grass yields when you add solar panels, think it helps protect it a bit from strong wind and too much sun that can dry out the soil more and stunt growth.

    Also any time you hear people complain about "prime farmland" (that is so shit they only ever use it for grazing) being used for solar "instead of food production" be aware it's very likely bullshit anti-solar propaganda. It's very common here in the UK.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (18 replies)
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    If it can get the necessary funds, that is. In a press release, the organization claimed that eliminating the patch once and for all would cost a whopping $7.5 billion

    If you give me 7.5 billion i’ll do my very best to clean up the ocean too

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 80 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Finally someone attempts to remove the UK ❤️

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 72 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is very good news! Please don't forget that even if the great pacific garbage patch doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that the ocean is clean. There are still lots of garbage in the ocean!

    However everybody needs to work where the problem originates.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There's only four left to clean after this one.

    In 2014, there were five areas across all the oceans where the majority of plastic concentrated. Researchers collected a total of 3070 samples across the world to identify hot spots of surface level plastic pollution. The pattern of distribution closely mirrored models of oceanic currents with the North Pacific Gyre, or Great Pacific Garbage Patch, being the highest density of plastic accumulation. The other four garbage patches include the North Atlantic garbage patch between the North America and Africa, the South Atlantic garbage patch located between eastern South America and the tip of Africa, the South Pacific garbage patch located west of South America, and the Indian Ocean garbage patch found east of South Africa.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 67 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    this might be the only good environmental news i've read since we got rid of cfcs

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    I still got microplastics in my balls.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Seems easier picking up trash by hand than taxing the rich for the project

    So far, the nonprofit claims it has fished out a million pounds of trash from the patch, a mere 0.5 percent of its total. But within a decade, it says, it could ramp up its operations to get rid of it in its entirety.

    Next year, the company will focus its efforts on establishing a "hotspot" map of areas in the ocean with "intense plastic accumulation."

    While $7.5 billion may sound like a lot, it's less than one month's worth of Apple's profits last year, or a sixth of the bonus Tesla shareholders awarded to CEO Elon Musk.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 28 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    That's not possible unless you ban fishing nets

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    True, but let's not the baby out with the bathwater.

    98% or 90% or even a verifiable 50% reduction is insanely amazing news

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    So far, the nonprofit claims it has fished out a million pounds of trash from the patch, a mere 0.5 percent of its total. But within a decade, it says, it could ramp up its operations to get rid of it in its entirety.

    :-/

    They're asking for $75B for the full project and currently relying on start up capital with a tiny fraction of that. Apple's "committed" $7.5B tentative to Ocean Cleanup Project raising the rest on short notice.

    This isn't "on track". It's a pilot project that's in the middle of a Series B funding round.

    Also - most critically - it's not clear in the article what they're doing with the waste they recover. Simply moving it around doesn't eliminate the garbage. And the project does not appear to include a budget for recycling or otherwise repurposing what they recover.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    They’re mostly thinking 10 years, but:

    Better yet, if the nonprofit's latest technological ideas come to fruition, Slat suggests we could even clear the patch in just five years at a cost of just $4 billion.

    Ultimately though it comes down to funding, and I’m not sure this is the administration with the stomach to fund these types of projects.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Once it's cleaned up we should replace all the garbage with cum, so the fish can eat the cum.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 24 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I feel like there's a story behind that comment that I'm unaware of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    finally, i don't have to think even a second about my individually plastic wrapped candies

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    What's going to stop the polluters doing it again?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    the patch is continually being replenished, so....

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I love this, it's great, but it doesn't address the root cause unfortunately

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›