Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

orbuch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 267 posts

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#171

Post by galangalalgol »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #136

Net negative emissions must be a global goal within 5 years because this is a climate change emergency. It doesn't mean no emissions, it means deeply net negative. Even going crazy to get to zero emissions, it doesn't change the inconvenient fact that an excess of GHGs are already in the air. Sequestration (CCS) and solar shades (SRM) are the primary, big-$tretch approaches that are most readily-apparent to moderatin…

Ferrous sulphate seeding also produces kelp mats much more reflective of light than water is.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#172

Post by ed_balls »

acd wrote: post #120

We need to stop consuming like there is no tomorrow. This is driven by advertisement convincing consumers they should buy products they may not need. Secondly we need to make products which lasts a life time. I see root cause that we need to remodel the economy from market economy consumerism to a circular sustainable economy. Most current economists is saying expand expand expand, but that increases co2 levels due t…

> lasts a life time.

This won't change much. Nobody will work on Pentium II, drive a gas guzzler or get a low resolution MRI. It's hard to regulate such stuff. You can only improve it a bit e.g. mandatory 3-year warranty with an option to extend it to 6 years. While buying the consumer would see the price for each warranty length.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#174

Post by spodek »

acd wrote: post #120

We need to stop consuming like there is no tomorrow. This is driven by advertisement convincing consumers they should buy products they may not need. Secondly we need to make products which lasts a life time. I see root cause that we need to remodel the economy from market economy consumerism to a circular sustainable economy. Most current economists is saying expand expand expand, but that increases co2 levels due t…

Glad to see reducing consumption at the top.

People's scarcity mindset makes them think burning less fossil fuels and consuming less stuff will lower their quality of life. On the contrary, most Americans could reduce their consumption by 80% off pure life improvements.

People convolve reducing consumption with returning to the stone age, which is a false dichotomy. It's more like exiting a mindset that stuff means happy to where it means people trying to create craving.

I speak from experience of reducing my consumption by about 90%, leading many others to start reducing through my leadership executive training and podcast. Before they act, they're full of facts and figures arguing why not to act. After they act, they wish they had earlier. The key is to activate their intrinsic motivation, not to tell them what to do. Then what they do feels meaningful.

People don't want to do small things, they want to do meaningful things.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#175

Post by HunOL »

jokoon wrote: post #133
phtrivier wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author actually agrees with you, per the article itself: "there are two general approaches to keep warming to below a certain level: - Reducing emissions - Removing previous emissions from the sky If you remember one thing from this piece, it should be that we need to do both. Gone are the days where optimistic emissions reductions kept us below a 2-degree warming target."

Except reducing emissions seems much more doable, safe and simple. It's just politically difficult. I have little hope that technology will be able to capture co2 in a manner that will be sufficient. I don't like those sorts of techs because people will brandish them as a solution, while it's highly unlikely they will help at all.

Changing minds and habits of billions of people is more simple and feasible? For me it's ridiculous. Any technological solution looks way better for me.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#176

Post by pkolaczk »

ed_balls wrote: post #172
acd wrote: post #120

We need to stop consuming like there is no tomorrow. This is driven by advertisement convincing consumers they should buy products they may not need. Secondly we need to make products which lasts a life time. I see root cause that we need to remodel the economy from market economy consumerism to a circular sustainable economy. Most current economists is saying expand expand expand, but that increases co2 levels due t…

> lasts a life time. This won't change much. Nobody will work on Pentium II, drive a gas guzzler or get a low resolution MRI. It's hard to regulate such stuff. You can only improve it a bit e.g. mandatory 3-year warranty with an option to extend it to 6 years. While buying the consumer would see the price for each warranty length.

Many computer programs or websites were more responsive in the times of Pentium II than they are now. It looks like we negated a lot of hardware advancement by inefficient software or by putting advertising in almost every possible place.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#177

Post by jncraton »

spodek wrote: post #174
acd wrote: post #120

We need to stop consuming like there is no tomorrow. This is driven by advertisement convincing consumers they should buy products they may not need. Secondly we need to make products which lasts a life time. I see root cause that we need to remodel the economy from market economy consumerism to a circular sustainable economy. Most current economists is saying expand expand expand, but that increases co2 levels due t…

Glad to see reducing consumption at the top. People's scarcity mindset makes them think burning less fossil fuels and consuming less stuff will lower their quality of life. On the contrary, most Americans could reduce their consumption by 80% off pure life improvements . People convolve reducing consumption with returning to the stone age, which is a false dichotomy. It's more like exiting a mindset that stuff means…

I'm glad to see this as well. I've been working on a site as part of a class project to help surface used items that have a long useful lifetime. My hope is that this will help in a small way to reduce the cycle of consumerism.

Here's a link to the site:

https://createdtolast.com/laptops

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#178

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #136

Net negative emissions must be a global goal within 5 years because this is a climate change emergency. It doesn't mean no emissions, it means deeply net negative. Even going crazy to get to zero emissions, it doesn't change the inconvenient fact that an excess of GHGs are already in the air. Sequestration (CCS) and solar shades (SRM) are the primary, big-$tretch approaches that are most readily-apparent to moderatin…

>Net negative emissions must be a global goal within 5 years because this is a climate change emergency.

No, it's not. You know how I know it's not? The people who keep telling me this keep flying on jets, private jets even!

In any case, with any plausible amount of warming, humanity will be fine.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#179

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #166
lopmotr wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an existential crisis. That's not what the science says. There's no evidence that climate change will make humans extinct or end civilization. If that's not what you mean by existential crisis, then don't use that word because that's what it means.

There’s plenty of evidence that a whole lot of other plants and animals will cease to exist, though.

And I should care if the Botswanan Fru-Fru Toad goes extinct because...?

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#180

Post by systemtest »

jokoon wrote: post #113

I don't like those sorts of articles because they dismiss the idea of reducing CO2 emissions, while only talking about hypothetical technologies. I don't think it's a good idea to wait for such undeveloped technology to mature, because the clock is already ticking. It is still much more important to reduce emissions now. What would be much better, for example, is developing smaller cars. I would rather see society or…

The US may have a high CO2 per capita but also look at surface area. Because that reflects how polluted a piece of land is. The Netherlands (my country) is high on the list with 3859 tonnes of CO2 per square kilometer. Belgium at 3279. Germany at 2239. Switzerland at 970.6. And then all the way to the bottom the USA at 547 tonnes, sandwiched in between Hungary and Spain.
Post reply on HN