this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
458 points (99.6% liked)

Uplifting News

18937 readers
290 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Why do this threads always degrade to 100% renewable solutions only? We can generate most of our power via wind and sun, the rest we can buffer, we don't need to eliminate burning just reduce it to sporadic buffering of the grid.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Because burning kills the climate. We need to eliminate it.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The planet can handle low levels of C02, just not the levels we are doing.

But insisting on a zero emissions solution is exactly what I would do if I were an oil and gas CEO.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 weeks ago

Of course the planet's systems can handle some degree of CO₂ emissions. But there are fields much harder to decarbonize than energy supply. Waste removal for example.

But insisting on a zero emissions solution is exactly what I would do if I were an oil and gas CEO.

How so?

[–] discocactus@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

Not if it's closed loop or C negative with renewable sources. There's nothing inherently bad about combustion, it's just the scale and externalities.

[–] VAK@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Fuck that, fossil's too expensive

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] VAK@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Well, fingers crossed then

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

And more importantly that “most of our power” that can be generated by wind and sun is far higher than what we do now. This is not a valid argument against building out renewables as fast as possible.

It may be an argument about where our endpoint is but by that time technology and circumstances will both have changed so it’s still an invalid argument