this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
242 points (99.2% liked)

World News

49628 readers
2687 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, found that global carbon storage capacity was 10 times less than previous estimates after ruling out geological formations where the gas could leak, trigger earthquakes or contaminate groundwater, or had other limitations. That means carbon capture and storage would only have the potential to reduce human-caused warming by 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.26 Fahrenheit)—far less than previous estimates of around 5-6 degrees Celsius (9-10.8 degrees Fahrenheit), researchers said.

"Carbon storage is often portrayed as a way out of the climate crisis. Our findings make clear that it is a limited tool" and reaffirms "the extreme importance of reducing emissions as fast and as soon as possible," said lead author Matthew Gidden, a research professor at the University Maryland's Center for Global Sustainability. The study was led by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, where Gidden also is a senior researcher in the energy, climate and environment program.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (23 children)

What if we liquify it into a black gooey form first?

[–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I read a popscience article about how US naval ships with nuclear reactors are now using carbon dissolved in seawater to create kerosene. So there's that.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Why would they need kerosene? Lol.

I'm picturing them hanging out with old lamps down there.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Kerosine will run a diesel engine, all I can think of.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)