551–560 of 591 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Motor véhicule is 50% and aviation 5%, idk about heating. So we assume that we replace all explosion engine by EV. Correct?
Mostly replace, yes, there is also electricity generation via oil to be replaced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I thought I was adequately clear when I initially specified: > Nothing bad will happen if we suddenly stopped all fossil fuel consumption and replaced it with renewable energy. Do you really need me to repeat this for every subsequent reference to the hypothetical? You yourself acknowledged it in your first comment, so you obviously understood it. But if you need me to, fine, replace the sentence you quoted with:…
Right. (I was actually coming back to edit my post to acknowledge that you said that.) But... We can't actually do that right now. When can we? 10 years? With all the combines, and all the tractors, and all the semis having to be electric? Can we even do it then? We maybe can in 20... If it's 20 years from now before we can do it, that's not "right now". The problem with the way you said it is that it makes it sound…
It's incredible how rabid people get when talking about phasing out fossil fuel. In your eyes, I haven't stated clearly enough that the hypothetical (which you keep telling me is impossible) is a hypothetical. Now, any normal reader might see that and think "Hm, if that's not possible, he's surely talking about a hypothetical". But not you, you keep going about how I haven't made it clear enough that it's a hypothetical. You even jumped at the opportunity of me not explicitly repeating the complete hypothetical the second time, even though you understood it the first time. Have you stopped to reflect on why you're acting the way you are?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more you think about it the more it becomes plainly obvious how unfathomably screwed we genuinely are.
If policies don't drastically change. Just imagine norwegian electric car subsidies but happening everywhere decades straight - for solar, wind, tidal, battery, pumped water stations, sand batteries. Perhaps a Sahara -> Europe solar megaproject (I remember a good discussion on HN about that). Separately, I wonder if a geoengineering megaproject is more likely to be funded than small incremental changes due to politic…
That's actually the whole deal, even if policies change drastically in the right direction we're still completely screwed. Not quite as screwed but still not notably less. If we stopped our civilization covid-style on a dime and didn't emit any greenouse gasses at all from now on, we're still mostly screwed in the near term. Delayed effects are a bitch.
And policies will only gradually change at best, only after the effects are plainly seen and when it's laughably beyond too late.
My prediction is that geo-engineering will be done when a certain death/disturbance threshold will have been reached (too many climate refugees for example and western world can't achieve a closed border, or too many weather disasters that hit the western world and populations are convinced it is because of global warming). However I don't think we will reach it in the next 5-10 years, but maybe after that period. Al…
I'm not ready to predict, but based on what I saw in Europe in 2015[0] and how things[1] are developing[2] lately[3], I see this as a very plausible outcome. The US and EU countries get more migrants than they can handle; resentment grows; attempts to solve the problem with bureaucracy and policing fail spectacularly; calls for outright violence grow louder; and the well-meaning citizenry agrees that Something Must B…
- we make an AGI or find a human genius that figures out a way to make it work, in which case we're all good
- we try it with known methods, it fails and we possibly go extinct faster in the worst case scenario
Fun times. No pressure.
On the bright side I suppose it only makes sense to plan for success though, since if we fail then we're dead anyway.
My prediction is that geo-engineering will be done when a certain death/disturbance threshold will have been reached (too many climate refugees for example and western world can't achieve a closed border, or too many weather disasters that hit the western world and populations are convinced it is because of global warming). However I don't think we will reach it in the next 5-10 years, but maybe after that period. Al…
some crazy person or country will bring the reckoning closer (or render it moot) by leveraging the unrest and fear, by blowing things up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
also ai agent scientists in a simulated lab could solve big problems like climate change. AI might be the only thing that can save us, if it don't kill us.
Climate change is not a technological problem at this point. We know how to solve it, we just don't do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what the "conspiracy" would be, but yeah, the sulfur reductions in ship emissions is definitely a factor. Someone needs to figure out large scale injection of SO2 to the stratosphere. Don't wait for permission, just do it!
I mean… “breathing in sulfur is bad for people’s health” is a documented issue right? Like the sulfur _is pollution_. That’s why we cared to get rid of it!
If you're trying to breathe there, you have much bigger problems than inhaling SO2 :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy is living in the suburbs, which means they aren’t going to the store very often as they probably live far away from it. That means they are getting more than a few bags of groceries, they don’t need an F150 for sure, but they probably aren’t getting to carry this with an e-bike. Better for the suburban guy to become a city guy and walk or bike to the grocery store a few times a week. They get better veggies t…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suburban middle class guy switching from driving an F150 to the Safeway to using an e-bike to get his groceries will not cause anyone to starve, but it will make a measurable dent in CO2 emissions. Do not frame this as an irreconcilable tension between starvation and plenty. The question is whether the average American consumer-bot can be coerced into not squandering the atmosphere at a rate 100x faster than the aver…
The guy is living in the suburbs, which means they aren’t going to the store very often as they probably live far away from it. That means they are getting more than a few bags of groceries, they don’t need an F150 for sure, but they probably aren’t getting to carry this with an e-bike. Better for the suburban guy to become a city guy and walk or bike to the grocery store a few times a week. They get better veggies t…
Guy in the suburb needs to turn their lawn into a full garden and become as self-sufficient as possible
And tech carries out churning out artificial intelligence systems that consumes way more energy than genuine human intelligence while being worse off at the same tasks most of the time