• absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    It sucks that we lost contact.

    But the mission is not a complete failure, a whole lot of data were collected. We will get better for the next one.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      In the grand scheme of things $40m isn’t that much, and you could use carbon credit money to fund another. If the intent is to catch carbon generators not paying their share, surely you could recoup the cost.

      • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        Agreed, and if you go with similar tech; as was in the first one, it should be cheaper…since it is no longer the absolute cutting edge anymore.

      • Joe :tinoflag:@mastodon.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        @Dave @absGeekNZ, shouldn’t we also consider whether it’s necessary to pollute to find out more about pollution?
        If successful and we confirm what we already know, how much will this contribute to effective change?
        Is this the best use of $ for its cause?

        • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          I think this is a valid concern; but you have to look at the challenge of measuring the emissions over the entire country.

          There is no other way to capture this data.

        • Dave@lemmy.nzM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I guess the point here is holding businesses accountable. If this is how we get proof to stop polluting, then it could well create less pollution than it stops.

          You could argue that all pollution monitoring is polluting to find out more about pollution. You’d need to assess what they are expecting to catch vs the CO2 output.

          • Joe :tinoflag:@mastodon.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            @Dave, my point was that these arbitrators are already known and it can be more effective telling people who to boycott than launching rockets for a ‘showy’
            finger point and tell.
            Most if not all of these companies give a flying duck for those trying to hold them accountable.

            • Dave@lemmy.nzM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Aren’t we (as the govt) trying to force them to purchase carbon credits rather than creating a social movement to boycott?

              • Joe :tinoflag:@mastodon.nz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                @Dave, ah yes, unfortunately not many governments are a representation of their people anymore and even fewer are interested in acting for their benefits.

              • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                Carbon credits are secondary.

                What we want to do is lower emissions; one way to achieve this is to place a cost on those emissions. Thus giving an incentive to lower the emissions; carbon credits are a bit of a shit way of doing this. But it is better than nothing.

                • Dave@lemmy.nzM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Well I guess what I meant is that I don’t think the government is spending tens of millions on a satellite to start a social movement.

                  They are the government, if they want to stop polluters they shouldn’t encourage boycotts, they should use their teeth. Whether that’s forcing the polluters to buy carbon credits (because that’s the current system), shutting them down, or some other method, they should taking action not trying to convince the public to avoid them.