311–320 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn’t do well economically Well, economy is fossil fuels. In the world after fossil fuels, we may have to redefine what "economy" means.
That seems to have very low chances of success.
But it is not binary: the less we do, the worse it will get. It's not about whether we "succeed" or not, it's about how bad we let it become.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were true there is no point trying to avert climate change. It will literally require global economic collapse, mass death and starvation and a civilisational reset. Fortunately, “economy is fossil fuels” is nonsense, so it actually makes sense to try and address this problem.
> Fortunately, “economy is fossil fuels” is nonsense Is it? The economy is what we produce and consume. The economy grows when we produce and consume more, it shrinks when we produce and consume less. How do we produce stuff nowadays? With fossil fuels. There is not a single object around you that did not require fossil fuels at some point. Economy "does well" when we have easy access to fossil fuels, it doesn't when…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike the states, Germany is densely populated and does not have vast uninhabited areas. Where do you suggest should they store their nuclear waste? Germany has been looking for an appropriate place for the last 50(!) years and does not expect to come to a conclusion any time soon: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-scrap-deadline-... In the mean time, they're keeping they're using the sites of their forme…
Nuclear waste is a complete non-issue. The area you need to store it is tiny and you do not at all need vast uninhabited areas for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were true there is no point trying to avert climate change. It will literally require global economic collapse, mass death and starvation and a civilisational reset. Fortunately, “economy is fossil fuels” is nonsense, so it actually makes sense to try and address this problem.
> Fortunately, “economy is fossil fuels” is nonsense Is it? The economy is what we produce and consume. The economy grows when we produce and consume more, it shrinks when we produce and consume less. How do we produce stuff nowadays? With fossil fuels. There is not a single object around you that did not require fossil fuels at some point. Economy "does well" when we have easy access to fossil fuels, it doesn't when…
This is sort of like saying the economy is air or the economy is sand. (What is closer to correct is the economy is, within approximation, energy.)
> the truth is that it is slowing down because of fossil fuels
American emissions per capita have been falling alongside rising GDP/capita. Europe’s malaises are broader than this.
> This is a certainty if we don't do anything
If action requires literally replacing and restarting the global economy, there is no hope. Might as well party. If, on the other hand, it’s a rewiring, it’s rational to do.
I thought we learned our lesson around hyperbolic environmental doomerism, but apparently not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CO2 capture can be carbon negative, even if it consumes energy.
CO2 capture is carbon negative by definition. That's not what I said. There are some experimental methods of capturing CO2 (or rather just carbon in CO2), but I replied to a proposed negative tax on economic activities that are carbon negative as energy consumtion. There are none. There's only experimental carbon capture with no products and no services generated as an output of this "economic activity" that consumes…
Experimental olivine based carbon capture looks promising to this uneducated bystander, but what do I know?
In any case, I'm not expecting climate action. Many either don't know how to even start fixing this mess. Others would rather have their own children boil than to potentially give up some material conveniences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should make sure that the indirect cost for CO2 are added to the price of energy and imported products depending on the mix. It is one of the few areas where I think a market can fix things.
That would mean we all pay for the CO2 emissions of the US army since they are the world's largest single institution consumer. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333873233_Hidden_ca... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/12/elephant-in-the-ro...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it would, but there's less profit for capitalists to make with distributed sovereign renewable energy. 30 years ago the answer was nuclear. Not today, it's just a distraction to try to keep us burning dead dinosaurs for longer.
The environmentalists who railed against nuclear for the last 30 years are very much responsible for how many dead dinosaurs we've burnt over that time. Excuse me if I'm skeptical about what they now say about energy policy. To put it another way, I could flip your statement on its head: Renewables are just a distraction to try to keep us burning dead dinosaurs for longer instead of building durable nuclear power cap…
We collectively deserve this. The warnings came, but it was framed as "future generations will face these problems", and we collectively kicked the can down the road. I say "collectively" because many of us don't deserve this and have wanted desperately to address it head on to try and mitigate the damage. But the scope of this problem makes individual contributions effectively meaningless. It's not clear how bad it…
The only way I can understand your premise of helplessness is that it provides a convenient excuse for you not to do anything to help. Do you think companies will keep burning fuel at the exact same rate if a billion individuals dont incentivize them to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the neat thing is that this isn't at all true. The total annual CO2 budget of the earth is tremendous; less than 5% of CO2 emissions each year into the atmosphere are from humans. Volcanism, photosynthesis, and other natural sources outweigh humans by far. In numbers, ballpark 730gigatons from natural sources and about 30gt from humans. If you look at the amount the CO2 levels increase each year in the atmosphere,…
This is an absurd statement. Lets use bank accounts instead of CO2 to point out the absurdity. Imagine every year a company makes $730,000 in revenue but spends $730,000 on various expenses. Its bank balance doesnt change because the income and expenses cancel out. Now suppose the company starts receiving an additional $30,000 every year while its expenses stay the same. At the end of each year, its bank balance incr…
Yes, this is my whole point. You wrote a long condescending comment accusing me of being a climate denier that fully agrees with me.
My point is that the actual amount of atmospheric increase per year is less than the amount humans put into the atmosphere per year, so 1) obviously humans are responsible for CC, and 2) could stop it at any time by dropping emissions below the amount the atmospheric increase amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the neat thing is that this isn't at all true. The total annual CO2 budget of the earth is tremendous; less than 5% of CO2 emissions each year into the atmosphere are from humans. Volcanism, photosynthesis, and other natural sources outweigh humans by far. In numbers, ballpark 730gigatons from natural sources and about 30gt from humans. If you look at the amount the CO2 levels increase each year in the atmosphere,…
It's unclear which message you're trying to convey, but your math checks out. The net CO2 impact of natural processes is -19Gt/yr. Humans add +37G/yr for a net +18Gt. If we stopped everything, you'd expect -19Gt/yr; however, natural sinks like the ocean will start off-gassing, cutting the improvement to about half. Because of how long this switch will take, most IPCC options need 100 to 1000 Gt of net CO2 removal by…
That is the message I am.trying to convey.