111–120 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The poor are decimated when we allow them to be, not when prices rise by 50%.
OK, let’s jack up prices for everything from food to infrastructure but in a magical way that doesn’t harm low-income people. Great plan bro
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, let’s jack up prices for everything from food to infrastructure but in a magical way that doesn’t harm low-income people. Great plan bro
Bruh here in Europe there's a thing called welfare state. The gov can pay poor people to compensate.
That way we can tax the crap out of all those productive people people and companies over there without worrying about any economic consequences.
This assumes that global warming is the problem, but arguably the most pressing aspect of carbon pollution is the acidification of the oceans which this plan would not address. It might make more sense to focus on capturing carbon pollution than to mitigate some of the side effects of rampant carbon pollution.
I had a nightmare where we tried to bioengineer something to eat the ocean plastics and it was too successful. It ate all plastic but turned the ocean full of algae killing nearly all marine life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Half assed solutions are still better than nothing.
Are they ? If your house is on fire and you use an ice cube to cool your neck it'll feel good for a bit too, but you would achieve nothing, or even worse, you'd be under the impression of doing something while losing precious time. We know what the right solutions are, but doing the right things is hard, hence we focus on meaningless half assed solution which are, in the end, only aggravating the situation. Notice ho…
Not hard. Impossible.
once the global climate gets sufficiently inconvenient we will definitely figure out a way of regulating ocean albedo via microorganisms or micromachines or something similar. human ingenuity will find a way. yes it might be a bit messy for a while...
This assumes that global warming is the problem, but arguably the most pressing aspect of carbon pollution is the acidification of the oceans which this plan would not address. It might make more sense to focus on capturing carbon pollution than to mitigate some of the side effects of rampant carbon pollution.
It also turns out that SRM might not even be able to save us if things get really bad. The marine stratocumulus clouds they talk about depend on being able to cool to space (at the top). If you increase CO2 too much, this can no-longer happen, causing a collapse of the cloud system and a large decrease in planetary albedo (and hence warming) [0]. These SRM techniques are no silver bullet. However, as other have point…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a nightmare where we tried to bioengineer something to eat the ocean plastics and it was too successful. It ate all plastic but turned the ocean full of algae killing nearly all marine life.
Check out the book Andromeda Strain by Michael Crichton. Plot revolves around something that starts eating all plastic and the chaos that results
I always wondered how large a satellite we would need at the ideal spot between the earth and the sun to block a portion of the sunlight in order to cool the planet down a few degrees.
Not that it would solve humans being a cancer to the planet, but it would give us a few hundred years to get to a solution before billions of us find ourselves in some sort of post-apocalyptic world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? I think we would avert disaster if we got net zero today. We wouldn't avoid change and things would continue to warm as you say. But it wouldn't be the end of civilization, just very inconvenient. In the other hand if we don't stop making the problem worse we will eventually activate feedback loops that can't be stopped and that do end civilization, kill the majority of humans and other species, and make huge…
Source is I am a meteorologist who has studied climatology. The residence time of GHGs ensure that we will have elevated levels for at least a century, even if we do all the nice things like plant trees. The terrestrial biosphere is too small, and not a long-term solution. Here in California, carbon-credit forests are going up in smoke. We have already committed to levels that I consider catastrophic. Particularly in…
We need to restore 350ppm asap. Meaning carbon negative.
I know you know this. Just expounding for the lurkers.
…or we could simply stop emitting greenhouse gases. Like, right now.
So we turn off power plants, stop manufacturing, and people all over the world stop driving, shipping, farming and flying with anything that emits C02. What do you suppose happens after that?
If the US put its mind to it (WWII levels of mobilization), it could probably achieve full renewable electrical conversion (all fossil fuel infrastructure obsoleted and removed) within five years or so.