Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 210 posts

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#41

Post by Sharlin »

adrianN wrote: post #16
erikrothoff wrote: post #3

Why isn't there a billion dollar reward to any person or company that comes up with a cost-effective way to capture carbon from the air and convert back to solid carbon? I'd love to understand the physics (or chemistry? maybe economy?) that prevents this from materialising.

There is a cost-effective way: Planting trees, cutting them down and turning the wood to charcoal. You'd need huge areas dedicated to such forests. You'd also need to "unburn" most of the coal and oil we burned so far. That's a mind-boggling amount of matter we're talking about here. But who would pay for that? If there were the political will we would long have passed a simple carbon tax that, after some adjustment…

Why burn them to charcoal? Living trees continue to be efficient carbon sinks for potentially hundreds of years. If you have to cut them down you should use the material for construction, to reduce dependency on energy-intensive steel and concrete industry.

But it’s a moot point anyway, because trees simply grow too slowly to be an effective carbon buffer at the timescales that are relevant right now.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#42

Post by Reason077 »

jamesblonde wrote: post #28
growlist wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't vouch for the comparison you are questioning, but did find this: 'Germany emitted more greenhouse gasses in 2016 than in the previous year, but is still seen as a positive model for the rest of the world.' https://euobserver.com/environment/137298 Best thing we could have to reduce co2 would be a massive global recession I'd say, unless that is things got so bad that we had to revert to cutting down trees to su…

Of all countries to pick on, Germany are the one doing the most to change to a carbon-free economy. Read up on the Energiewende - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende_in_Germany It is govt policy to reduce Co2 emissions by 80–95% by 2050. Germany is at the top in on-shore wind, off-shore wind, and solar. If they had kept nuclear power, they could be doing even better. I am sure closing the nuclear power plants…

German policy is in the right place, but in recent years the reality has been different and it’s progress on reducing CO2 emissions has not been impressive.

Germany still burns huge amounts of coal including brown coal (lignite), the dirtiest form of coal.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#43

Post by catawbasam »

Reason077 wrote: post #37
yesyesno wrote: post #33

Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i…

Don’t give up on tech. It’s technology that offers the best hope of solving these problems. Consider applying your skills to the renewable energy sector, companies working on transport electrification, and other “clean tech” sectors. These are exciting growth industries and you’ll be making a difference.

Yup. Also energy monitoring and efficiency. Lots of cheap improvements are still available, especially in areas with old building stock.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#44

Post by pjc50 »

erikrothoff wrote: post #3

Why isn't there a billion dollar reward to any person or company that comes up with a cost-effective way to capture carbon from the air and convert back to solid carbon? I'd love to understand the physics (or chemistry? maybe economy?) that prevents this from materialising.

There are tons of ways of doing it, but all of them necessarily cost more energy than you extracted from the fossil fuel. So, from an energy economics point of view, first we stop extracting the so-called "unburnable" fossil fuels - end conventional and shale oil exploration and phase out their extraction. Then, with our spare renewable energy, we can start condensing fuel out of the atmosphere; there are several processes for this, including one the US Navy is pioneering for at-sea refuelling of planes on nuclear carriers.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#45

Post by LeifCarrotson »

agumonkey wrote: post #21
adrianN wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a cost-effective way: Planting trees, cutting them down and turning the wood to charcoal. You'd need huge areas dedicated to such forests. You'd also need to "unburn" most of the coal and oil we burned so far. That's a mind-boggling amount of matter we're talking about here. But who would pay for that? If there were the political will we would long have passed a simple carbon tax that, after some adjustment…

What about vegetal roofs ? not strong enough ? because there's a huge surface area to tap into.

The surface area of a roof is tiny in comparison to planting miles and miles of forest. It's also very weight sensitive, but the goal is to capture, remove, and continuously replace a huge mass of solid carbon. Finally, green roofs select succulents and other plants that grow slowly, but for this goal you want a species that grows like a weed and produces literal tons of biomass that have to be trucked away and be buried.

The "plant trees for charcoal" idea is basically the bio-engineering method of "build huge photovoltaic solar plant, use electric energy to power chemistry to convert CO2 to oil". Photosynthetic plants are pretty efficient, compared to silicon solar cells, and they're (literally) dirt cheap.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#46

Post by Robotbeat »

mc32 wrote: post #39
yesyesno wrote: post #33

Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i…

evangelize in high birthrate countries things like contraception and encourage education especially of women. The fewer people destroying virgin forests and becoming western style consumers the lesser the better for environmental health. An earth of 7.5 billion is more sustainable than an earth of 10 billion. 7.5 will live better lives than a world of 10, given sociopolitical realities.

I like the idea of helping with education and stuff, but why not instead help them develop clean energy?

I’m just REALLY not a fan of the “can’t let the 3rd world have so many people and then develop to 1st world standards” thing. It may technically help the problem, but it feels like soft racism and proto-eugenicism, at least from the perspective of people living in those countries. It gives me the creeps, although I’m sure that’s not your intention.

Also, I’m convinced that the main way to solve these problems is human ingenuity. And that can’t just include people in the Western world.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#47

Post by gepi79 »

yesyesno wrote: post #33

Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i…

Keep your job if you like it or need it.

What you can do:

- Do not panic. A good life is important for work for improvement.

- Yes to all of your suggestions. You are vegan ? Good for you and the rest of the world.

- Tell other people how important and urgent change is.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGJq0eQZoFSwgcqgxIE9MHw/vid...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJRjK20fHylJyf-HiBtqI2w/vid...

https://lustysociety.org/

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#48

Post by digitalsushi »

ForHackernews wrote: post #38
yesyesno wrote: post #33

Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i…

If you want the honest but depressing answer: it's probably too late. Don't have kids unless you want them to have a worse life than you've had. On the plus side, the worst consequences from climate change will occur after we're dead. Just enjoy the rest of your life and try not to think about it too much. After all, that's what everyone else has been doing.

Even if the math ends up that we are indeed doomed, this type of behavior is not aligned with the human spirit. If we get lung cancer from smoking, we can learn from it, defy it, and /stop smoking/. Or we can become the vice incarnate, and die with the smug satisfaction that we were right because we gave no hope. I want to spend the rest of my life on a planet struggling to survive, not partying to death.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#49

Post by agumonkey »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #45
agumonkey wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about vegetal roofs ? not strong enough ? because there's a huge surface area to tap into.

The surface area of a roof is tiny in comparison to planting miles and miles of forest. It's also very weight sensitive, but the goal is to capture, remove, and continuously replace a huge mass of solid carbon. Finally, green roofs select succulents and other plants that grow slowly, but for this goal you want a species that grows like a weed and produces literal tons of biomass that have to be trucked away and be bu…

but it's also quite close to CO2 pollution since a lot of emission are in cities (low efficiency use of ICE I believe)

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#50

Post by adrianN »

Sharlin wrote: post #41
adrianN wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a cost-effective way: Planting trees, cutting them down and turning the wood to charcoal. You'd need huge areas dedicated to such forests. You'd also need to "unburn" most of the coal and oil we burned so far. That's a mind-boggling amount of matter we're talking about here. But who would pay for that? If there were the political will we would long have passed a simple carbon tax that, after some adjustment…

Why burn them to charcoal? Living trees continue to be efficient carbon sinks for potentially hundreds of years. If you have to cut them down you should use the material for construction, to reduce dependency on energy-intensive steel and concrete industry. But it’s a moot point anyway, because trees simply grow too slowly to be an effective carbon buffer at the timescales that are relevant right now.

You burn them because that prevents decay from releasing CO2, stabilizing the carbon for at least a millennium. Young trees also add biomass much faster than old growth.

Using them for building material is okay as well, but the amount of wood needed to get rid of the excess CO2 is far above any reasonable demand for building material. (We're talking about a trillion tons of carbon here)

Post reply on HN