• Encromion@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Maybe out in a limb here but, I think industry and aviation are two of the areas that should be able to use fossil fuels longer than others. Their energy expenditure is huge, yes, but the scientific advancement that is necessary to make them zero carbon are still quite a ways in the future.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It depends on the industry. We know how to prevent the bulk of emissions from concrete and steel, which are the big ones. And yes, aviation might well end up needing to use direct air capture to remove their emissions

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      According to the study the US military emitted 23million t of CO2e and the world 54.49 billion t of CO2e. That means it is 0.05% of global emissions. Per soldier it is something like 17t. There are a lot of small countries in the world, so it sounds worse then it really is.

      To put it another way, they did not forget. The US military just does not matter enough in the grande scheme of things.

      EDIT: Saudi Aramco release nearly three times of this in scope1 and 2 emissions alone.

  • Ben Matthews@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    What a surprise! - decades ago it was obvious these are toughest nuts to crack, which is why I avoided taking planes since 1990. Led me to discover many interesting places on the way, although became isolated from a society which treats jetting about as standard.
    By the way, article a bit simple, agricultural sector also has challenges to reduce emissions.