this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
174 points (96.3% liked)

World News

38968 readers
1478 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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Germany wants to be climate neutral by 2045. But a panel of government climate advisers says it's already in danger of missing a key target to cut planet-heating emissions by the end of the decade.

Germany's climate advisory body has called for new policy measures to slash greenhouse gas emissions, warning that the country looks set to miss its 2030 climate change targets.

In a report published on Monday, the Council of Experts on Climate Change said Germany was unlikely to reach its goal of cutting 65% of emissions by the end of the decade compared to 1990 levels.

The panel, which is appointed by the government and has independent authority to assess the country's climate performance, said sectors such as transport and construction in particular were struggling to decarbonize.

The findings contradict statements from German Climate Protection Minister and Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, who said in March that projections from the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) showed emissions were falling and Germany would meet its goal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

One possible meaning of fossil is "any rock or mineral dug out of the earth", which very much applies to uranium. If you want to police people's choice of words at least make sure that you know the actual meaning of words. Another meaning, very much applicable here, is "something outmoded". Something like a lathe can be a fossil without having spent a single second buried.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

The more important meaning in this context, imo, is the first one. Unlike solar, wind, hydroelectric power etc., nuclear energy is fossil in the sense that it uses a finite resource which cannot be replenished.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

fossil fuel

noun

  1. A hydrocarbon-based fuel, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time. 
  2. Any fuel derived from hydrocarbon depositssuch as coalpetroleumnatural gas and, to some extent, peat; these fuels are irreplaceable, and their burning generates the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
  3. Fuel consisting of the remains of organisms preserved in rocks in the earth's crust with high carbon and hydrogen content. 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Quoting a dictionary is the last refuge of the incorrect.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Still better than pulling bullshit out of your ass.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago

I am not beholden to colonial language "authorities".

Also OP said "energy sources", not "fossile fuels". Yes that's unconscionably nit-picky but so was criticising

Other fossil energy sources like oil and nuclear energy

in the first place: It's perfectly clear what OP means. There's no possible ambiguity. You attacking that kind of thing contributes to nothing but your own smugness.