this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
108 points (88.6% liked)

World News

41372 readers
2322 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
 

World GDP: $105.4 trillion USD

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 83 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Does it have to be diamonds? Could we maybe use the ashes of billionaires instead?

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Human ashes are mostly carbon, so yes, of course. We'll run out of billionaires pretty quickly, though.

[–] vikingr@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months ago

Sounds like a win-win tbh

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 months ago

Let's give it a trial run with a few thousand then we can measure the impact and reevaluate.

[–] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

That’s a problem that solves it self

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Isn't diamond manufactured in labs in 15 minutes now? I think the price is assuming natural diamonds value

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 60 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Of all the aerosols they could think about!

No chance at all of a basically indestructible material not being destructed if absorbed by lungs (or gills) and leading to some disease. You don't need to check. There's no way this could go wrong.

Or, rather... I believe lead is cheaper... Given how much people like to use it, maybe it's a better option.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I was thinking asbestos...

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Whatever you do, don’t look up silicosis. Not a problem at all. Not relevant.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pedro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We're carbon based lifeforms and diamonds, yep, made of carbon. What could possibly go wrong!? /s

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Diamond Lung.

Sounds posh.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 months ago

They got a headline. Mission achieved.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 57 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yes, let's just have everyone on Earth breathe in diamond dust all day every day. There's no way that could be bad for our health.

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There's never been a case of something having different behavior or health effects just because of a tiny chemical difference (trans fat) or size difference (micro plastics), what's the worst that could happen?

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 months ago

There have never been lung issues caused by inhaling very small dust particles, right?

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 months ago

just wear masks for a few decades, potentially respirators, and probably add whole house air filtration if you want to take it off at night.

[–] febra@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Amazing. Instead of just.. fighting climate change by not polluting the planet let's just fill our entire atmosphere with diamond dust, because that's the logical decision of course.

[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's not really any different than usual dust, other than it is even more likely to scratch your phone (oh no!). The surprising thing is the bullshit price number, I'm sure it's some brain-dead economist looking at the point-price for diamond and with great effort making a single multiplication.

Edit: The study does note industrial diamond manufacturing, but doesn't go into detail on why it's so expensive for diamond powder, other than saying "it would require much more industrial diamond than is currently produced".... Which is just.... Empty? Considering industry would change to account for such a drastic rise in demand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

That amount sounds like total bullshit. Diamonds can be manufactured and once that is done at scale, it won't be all that expensive. Even at $10000 a ton, five million tonnes would cost just 50 billion.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

These are not good ideas. Remember that global warming is just an overarching effect of pollution which we will still have. What diamond dust pollution effects will be, no one knows, but I doubt we want to find out.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

The fossil fuel oligarchy would prefer to give all mammals on Earth emphysema than stop burning fossils, and do it for 10x the price.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 12 points 2 months ago

That number is for doing it anually for 65 years. It lists roughly 18 billion per year for the cost.

But besides that, I think you are greatly underestimating the cost of the diamonds. Synthetic ones are way cheaper than natural ones, yes, but there's a lot of room between "natural diamond expensive" and "actually cheap". Going by these prices https://www.diamondtech.com/products/categories/diamond_powder_price_list.html

It's $2.5 million per tonne. I assume you could get a cheaper price per weight if you're buying five million tonnes of anything, but it's still two orders of magnitude more expensive than you are guessing

[–] jalkasieni@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 months ago

Firstly, it’s 5 million tonnes per year. For 65 years. Secondly, the cost is for a 65 year SAI program, including developing the tech and running the missions. Thirdly, this is all explained in TFA or the links therein.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] john89@lemmy.ca 27 points 2 months ago

The artificially-inflated price of the diamonds should be irrelevant in this calculation.

[–] pageflight@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

So what would it cost to replace all fossil fuel energy with renewable?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You are missing the point, because we need to do that anyway.
The idea is to prevent things from getting worse in the meantime.
Replacing fossil fuels take time no matter how much we invest.

[–] ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

ok but you just know corporations are going to use this as an excuse to keep using fossil fuels. like to them this is basically carte blanche to keep the status quo and block green energy from happening even harder. "oh hurdur har har we found a solution to climate change and it's dumping diamonds in the atmosphere, no need to pay for green energy anymore haha" type shit

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How effective would it be to sprinkle CEO dust into the sky?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

I'm not saying we should try it and find out, but I've heard worse ideas.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sweet! Four more years of Trump presidency, and Elon Musk can just pay for it out of pocket.

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Elon musk's kids should be made an example of when reclamation comes around.

They're being brought up thinking they can live like gods. How unfortunate would it be if they actually had to live like the rest of us...

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 18 points 2 months ago

Nice try, DeBeers.

[–] PortoPeople@lemm.ee 17 points 2 months ago

It's not cost effective to save humanity. Stock prices would crash.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Isn't this kind of thing the premise for all those "snowball Earth" sci Fi stories where global cooling went too far

[–] Ydna@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

No don't worry about that!

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

Break into the diamond company vaults and just take it. Bam, free diamonds.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 13 points 2 months ago

The silicosis will run rampant

[–] TurboHarbinger@feddit.cl 10 points 2 months ago

Let's throw more carbon to the air, what could go wrong. Is not like it will get to our lungs and destroy everything from the inside.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago

Just force debeers to open their vault. The cost would drop.

[–] Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Does this feel like swallowing a spider to catch a fly to anyone else?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Perhaps we'll die.

[–] rusticus@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can we use zirconium for $1 trillion?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

This is garbage.

[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

I'm still set on "we're fucked" until I see some more hopeful news.

When we are fucked and who is first fucked, and making sure I'm not that guy is what I'm trying to determine.

[–] marcolo@poliverso.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@FlyingSquid
"Scientists say..."
All of them, are you sure?
Geoengineering schemes are not agreed upon by many scientists. There are several types of geoengineering "solutions" and no agreement on any, just suggestions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›