301–310 of 356 posts
climate change isn't a problem of science it is a problem of oppression. It is an unjust decision by the power elites to continue the status quo while hoping some silly valley hoohaw is going to come up with a silver bullet but if not who cares, got mine. It is about stealing from present and future generations. It is about stealing from the poor, people of color who will be displaced by rising sea levels. It is abou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except nuclear is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have and it's also zero-carbon and renewable. We know it would solve the problem and we really don't know what else would so why not?
I am all for nuclear as part of the energy mix, but the amount of FUD being spread by pro-nuclear bros really makes it hard to get on board. > we really don't know what else would We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we planted trees on every square meter outside of current cities (and let them grow without disturbing them), would that make a dent in carbon sequestration? Serious question. Planting trees and re-growing ecosystems seems like a simple, straightforward solution, but I feel like it's a red herring.
Afforestation pretty much linearly absorbs carbon based on the size of the area you cover with trees, as a percentage of current forest area. So if we doubled the size and carbon trapping of all the forests on earth, yes, it would make a big dent (solve the problem entirely, maybe). But that's unrealistic, because forests currently cover 30% of the land area of the planet, so we're practically never going to get to 6…
To give a fairly obvious example, think about deciduous trees: once a year they shed a large amount of carbon (leaves) which then goes into the soil. The nitrogen content is used for matter for plants, while the carbon is not.
Over time, this deposits more and more carbon in the ground itself. This is a good, safe place for it, and the model above is one of the simplest. Ecosystems are great at this stuff if we stop setting them on fire or otherwise killing everything.
Agreed on keeping it in the ground, though.
climate change is also affected by the amount of swamp we replace by concrete. here in the Louisiana wetlands, the amount of CO2 that the environment can "sink" is enormous, but the wetlands are shrinking every day for more refineries and pipelines and.... there's a balance we haven't found and don't want to find. rich people apparently don't really care about their grandchildren.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afforestation pretty much linearly absorbs carbon based on the size of the area you cover with trees, as a percentage of current forest area. So if we doubled the size and carbon trapping of all the forests on earth, yes, it would make a big dent (solve the problem entirely, maybe). But that's unrealistic, because forests currently cover 30% of the land area of the planet, so we're practically never going to get to 6…
There's something you've missed there: forests - not just trees but the forest's understory, the animals living in it, the microbes in the soil etc - sequester carbon constantly. It isn't just "how much does the tree weigh, we've sequestered that much", it is about the ecological processes involved. To give a fairly obvious example, think about deciduous trees: once a year they shed a large amount of carbon (leaves)…
Really the purpose of forests is more in terms of soil creation and preservation, as you point out, a lot of the times in the form of shrubs, leaves, or needles and downed wood being infiltrated into substrate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't stop climate change by making it profitable. That's literally what got us into this mess in the first place.
I think that's the only way we can stop it. If we make reducing emissions profitable our existing system will do it. The other alternative is to completely rebuild our political/social system around something other than profit. Good luck with that, that's a fools errand.
climate change isn't a problem of science it is a problem of oppression. It is an unjust decision by the power elites to continue the status quo while hoping some silly valley hoohaw is going to come up with a silver bullet but if not who cares, got mine. It is about stealing from present and future generations. It is about stealing from the poor, people of color who will be displaced by rising sea levels. It is abou…
Extremely reductive take, to the point of naivety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with a "relaxed" or "realistic" goal is that it will make us lazy. If we set a goal of 1.5C which we probably won't meet then at least we are able to tell people what would happen when we reach that goal. Maybe then when someone adds 0.5C to the new target would take things more seriously. I find this a sad dilemma. We want to save humanity from the climate catastrophe, but we are more worried about crash…
If we crash the economy then we will lose the surplus capacity to address climate change, and people will keep burning fossil fuels just to survive. Concerns about a 1.5 °C (or whatever number) goal several decades in the future are meaningless if you don't have a way to get to work and your home is freezing cold today .
You're assuming that a drastic response to stop climate change will crash the economy more than climate change itself will, which is a highly dubious proposition given that many countries (e.g. Denmark) are case studies that show the feasibility and relative ease of the transition (relative to climate change itself).