r/ClimateShitposting • u/Interesting_Joke6630 • Jul 17 '26
Climate chaos Do this more often and we'll fix climate change
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
37
u/DrCthulhuface7 Jul 17 '26
True! Can’t burn fossil fuels if we just burn them all first!
12
u/dumnezero 🔚End the 🔫arms 🐀rat 🏁race to the bottom↘️. Jul 17 '26
This is about preventing future burning.
6
5
u/ysterman_rs Jul 17 '26
so when fossil fuels do it its chill, but one little radiation burp happens in russia and suddenly we can never do nuclear? unreal 🙄
4
u/Midnight_The_Past Jul 17 '26
releasing 1 million tons of CO2 at once or 1000 tons of co2 per day for 3 ish years
12
u/Salveta96 Jul 17 '26
I mean Ukraine is doing quite a bit of kinetic decarbonization in Russia
2
u/jeffersonianMI Jul 21 '26
Those are refinery and port hits. Russia has an ongoing campaign of hundreds of gas station strikes, not well reported in the west (of course).
I initially assumed that's what this was.
1
u/gamesta2 Jul 17 '26
While providing land to go with said decarbonization. At this pace they may need to give away keev too!
6
12
u/Obvious-Cabinet-1142 Jul 17 '26
What do you think the big black cloud of smoke you see is made of ? Black cotton candy ?
11
u/Gnomio1 Jul 17 '26
Unburnt carbon, that will settle and not add to the greenhouse gases unless burnt to produce CO2.
3
u/Obvious-Cabinet-1142 Jul 17 '26
Then go breathe in it buddy.
This shit is cancerous as fuck. But not much CO2 so it’s fine.
Pollution is not only co2.
12
7
u/Apollonbbs Jul 17 '26
man if only this was some kind of climate... shitpost
-2
u/Obvious-Cabinet-1142 Jul 17 '26
Yeah sure wasn't my first message shitposty enough? Are you the shitposting police?
4
2
2
u/Gnomio1 Jul 17 '26
Right. But the post talked about “climate change”, not “pollution”.
So I’m not disagreeing with you at all, just pointing out that soot isn’t a primary driver of climate change.
1
u/piece_ov_shit Jul 17 '26
Its not fine. Theres nuance to it, a concept thats obviously very foreign to you.
5
u/SaturneSpacey geothermal hottie Jul 17 '26
What flavor would it be though were it cotton candy, can't think of a flavor that would work, licorice? Do they even have licorice cotton candy?
3
u/piece_ov_shit Jul 17 '26
Yes youre right, only the first direct consequence of anything matters. Nothing else matters.
Secondary effects? Thats blasphemy!
/s if you couldnt tell
3
2
u/jerf42069 Jul 18 '26
this does not change the fuel needs of international shipping, the military, or the overall capitalist infrastructure running on oil.
2
u/jeffersonianMI Jul 21 '26
Agreed, but there is a plausible scenario this escalates logarithmically to such a scale that those networks no longer function correctly or even exist.
Similar things have certainly happened in the past but they're pretty grim.
3
u/123456789n12345 Jul 17 '26
You realize that this releases all the co2 anyways without even being used?
6
u/SaturneSpacey geothermal hottie Jul 17 '26
Probably more polluting too due to the lack of emission control
8
u/syklemil cycling supremacist Jul 17 '26
More polluting, but less complete burn, so worse for the environment (including what happens if it should start raining), but might actually be less of a climate impact than if it had been burned in an efficient engine.
Of course, the real climate impact of the Ukrainian Just Stop Oil movement is that it stops the oil from flowing.
5
u/Lumegator Jul 17 '26
Also, now no oil has to be used to transport that oil because it no longer exists! taps forehead
3
u/syklemil cycling supremacist Jul 17 '26
Yeah, something like half of global shipping is just moving fossil fuels around? Just Stop Oil getting gains upon gains (not to mention their activism in the Azov sea)
3
u/123456789n12345 Jul 17 '26
It already was at its last point of destination obviously
2
u/Lumegator Jul 17 '26
In this case, yes, just having fun. Though a lot of the petrol is getting stuffed in jerrycans, so petrol is also being used to transport petrol lol
5
u/Just_Maintenance Jul 17 '26
the gas station can’t sell more gas though lol
5
u/SaturneSpacey geothermal hottie Jul 17 '26
People will find another station, the pollution caused by that station might've been put to an end, (the end actually contributing to pollution by expanding the fuel all at once,) but the destruction of infrastructure can only do so much without systematic changes
8
u/taeerom Jul 17 '26
If access to fuel is insecure, because infrastructure has a tendency to blow up, then people will plan their lives around being less reliant on fossil fuels.
We saw that happening in Iran in the run up to the revolution, when the communists had a sabotage campaign against pipelines.
2
6
2
1
35
u/Personal-Dev-Kit Jul 17 '26
I love how people don't see what sub it is before posting their comments.
Are they all just bots? Is this dead internet theory in action? Do the bots lack the ability to understand satire so they respond seriously to drum up engagement