4 ms·

Which would imply there's at least one tool that is either faster or less expensive, which would be good news, wouldn't it?

• Vecr 3y ago
  Nukes. Already paid for, so no more cost. Faster, should stop most emissions in a few weeks, after the fires go out.
  • sitkack 3y ago
    Isn't apparent that a Nuclear Winter would actually occur. Now if we could nuke the moon and cause a dust ring to form ...
    • Vecr 3y ago
      I'm not talking about nuclear winter, I'm saying if you directly nuke the emitters they go away.
      • sitkack 3y ago
        Ok, tactical vs total solution. That really could work. Folks would quickly find a new solution that replaces the problem that your solution causes. I could see this working.
• qup 3y ago
  > Does Betteridge's Law of Headlines Reveal a Lifehack For Climate Change? No.
  • kevinmchugh 3y ago
    > Does This "Law" of Journalism Mean You Never Have To Read an Article Again?
    • birdyrooster 3y ago
      Depends
    • matheusmoreira 3y ago
      No, it means it's safe to utterly disregard clickbait articles whose titles ask stupid questions designed to entice you to read it so they can earn ad money.
• NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  It could also just imply that seaweed isn’t going to work for some reason.