21–30 of 199 posts
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
I'm not joking. It's been done so often that it doesn't add much to the conversation at this point.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... - over 2,000 hits.
No (to the question in the title), this is someone trying to sell a magic solution. You do not need to fight climate change, we need to stop it. And the first thing that needs to stop is the greed of the superrich. Unless the seaweed gives a conscience to the superrich then no, seaweed cannot help.
How do you stop it? I don't think the greed of the super rich is per say the problem. Perhaps there needs to be a shift in economic incentive
To drive emissions down to zero, without massive economic disruption, start small and increase the tax gradually every year.
Coupled with a "border adjustment" (a tariff on goods coming from countries to compensate if they have less aggressive climate policies) you can solve the problem of industries being outsourced to countries where GHG pollution is cheaper, and simultaneously put pressure on those countries to implement similar policies.
No (to the question in the title), this is someone trying to sell a magic solution. You do not need to fight climate change, we need to stop it. And the first thing that needs to stop is the greed of the superrich. Unless the seaweed gives a conscience to the superrich then no, seaweed cannot help.
How do you stop it? I don't think the greed of the super rich is per say the problem. Perhaps there needs to be a shift in economic incentive
No (to the question in the title), this is someone trying to sell a magic solution. You do not need to fight climate change, we need to stop it. And the first thing that needs to stop is the greed of the superrich. Unless the seaweed gives a conscience to the superrich then no, seaweed cannot help.
> You do not need to fight climate change, we need to stop it. The correct answer is neither; we need advanced technologies and material wealth that will allow us to master the environment more robustly. Consider that in the past 50 years of climate change, the human population more than doubled yet the number of deaths from climate-related causes dropped to one-third[0], mainly due to the growing wealth of developin…
No, blowing H2S and SO2 into the stratosphere is cheaper.
No (to the question in the title), this is someone trying to sell a magic solution. You do not need to fight climate change, we need to stop it. And the first thing that needs to stop is the greed of the superrich. Unless the seaweed gives a conscience to the superrich then no, seaweed cannot help.
> You do not need to fight climate change, we need to stop it. The correct answer is neither; we need advanced technologies and material wealth that will allow us to master the environment more robustly. Consider that in the past 50 years of climate change, the human population more than doubled yet the number of deaths from climate-related causes dropped to one-third[0], mainly due to the growing wealth of developin…
So… you know. No free lunch.
Hope we, as biological creatures borne of a billion-year old evolutionary process, don’t actually need the system that birthed us (for some reason).
No (to the question in the title), this is someone trying to sell a magic solution. You do not need to fight climate change, we need to stop it. And the first thing that needs to stop is the greed of the superrich. Unless the seaweed gives a conscience to the superrich then no, seaweed cannot help.
Okay cool, so what is your timeline for how long will it take to stop humans from being greedy? You realize any solution that is "rich people stop being greedy" is no solution at all?
We build such systems all the time and they do appear to be stable. The modern world couldn’t exist without their success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which would imply there's at least one tool that is either faster or less expensive, which would be good news, wouldn't it?
Nukes. Already paid for, so no more cost. Faster, should stop most emissions in a few weeks, after the fires go out.
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."