this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
85 points (96.7% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

2505 readers
558 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Oh noez! /s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, but it won't be with that mindset. Entrenched interests will fight tooth and nail, and typically win yielding ZERO reductions and often expansions of pollution.

Cap and Trade works, and we have a real world experience showing it. Here's a great example from the 1980s in the USA fighting acid rain pollution (Sulfer Dioxide emissions into the air)

"The stated purpose of the Acid Rain Program was to reduce total annual SO2 emissions in the US by ten million tons relative to 1980, when total US emissions were about 26 million tons. In a departure from conventional environmental regulation, the legislation did not prescribe how power plants would reduce their SO2 emissions. Instead, with a phase-in beginning in 1995 and culminating in 2000, the statute capped aggregate SO2 emissions at the nation’s 3,200 coal plants and created a market for firms to buy and sell government-issued allowances to emit SO2. " source

We could have had 15 years of CO2 emissions reductions starting in 2010, but your idea of "needs to reduce ASAP" worked to kill it then. source.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a conflict of interest, it will go wrong or the system will be cancelled.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are aware you're claiming it would have been a negative outcome about a historical events that actually resulted in success, right? You are literally denying history because it doesn't agree with your worldview?

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you see the global GHG emissions going down? Actually down.

Do you know when the targets for ZERO are and what the downwards angle has to be?

Good luck with your optimism.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you see the global GHG emissions going down? Actually down.

The successful implementation of cap-and-trade was on Sulfur Dioxide emissions, and YES EMISSIONS WENT DOWN MEETING TARGETS.

The proposal to use cap-and-trade for GHG was shot down by people like you in 2010 that said it wouldn't work, so it was never implemented like it was for Sulfur Dioxide. So GHG continued to rise without the cap-and-trade mechanism to reduce them.

Good luck with your optimism.

Oh, I'm not optimistic. We had something that worked, and it wasn't implemented for GHG because of pessimism like yours.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

SO₂ is not the same functionally in the economies as CO₂, just like the ozone destroying gases aren't teh same functionally in the economies as CO₂.

You are breathing optimism like oxygen in an oxygen poor environment.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

[X] is not the same functionally in the economies as [Y]

What are you meaning with these words? Are you referring to chemistry, business, or something else. It isn't clear so I don't know what you're trying to communicate.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It means that you are comparing apples to orange trees. You do not understand what the challenges are and what the require effort is.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Got it. I'm doubting you know what you're talking about now. You're not able to address the material questions in front of us in this discussion, and when pressed for specifics you attempt to use word play to distract. When pressed for clarity, you double down on ambiguity. I'm concluding you're arguing in bad faith or you are out of your understanding of the subject matter. Irrespective of which it is, it looks like we're come to the end of any useful discussion. I'm done, but you're welcome to continue responding into the void if you would like.

Have a great day!