211–220 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nature already has powerful carbon-removing technology, it's called a tree. Why reinvent the wheel? Trees haven’t been carbon sinks for hundreds of millions of years [1]. They absorb carbon while growing, but release it in decay. Short of planting and burying gigatonnes of forest, trees aren’t going to be our way out of this. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous
What about trees used as building material?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the other 3 schemes?
Scroll down on the page, they have a list of partners at the bottom who are doing very different things, but none of them are doing the traditional "inject CO2 into a saline aquifer" solution which can be attached to biofuel combustion or fermentation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interests opposed to actual change are the oil+coal industry most obviously, but also the rich more generally who are opposed to the redistribution which is necessary to make real climate action politically viable. (We will need to reduce certain forms of carbon-intensive production, and without wealth redistribution to compensate for that, the resulting society will be unstable.) Unfortunately we can't wait for…
There are also people, like myself, who just don't like the negativity of it all. We want progress and not regression but are told to use less of this, do less of that, ban this, ban that. But most importantly, stop looking forward to a brighter future for humanity. We should move backwards, not forwards. Destroy what we've created and make the future worse than the present because good things are bad, like puritanis…
“the tone of the book is urgent and pragmatic. It's also refreshingly optimistic and future-oriented, filled with specific ideas.... Their portrait of a planet transformed by the [Green New Deal] is designed to spark that effort."
And "its optimism is inspiring....The authors’ battle-ready tone on this score breaks with the often moralistic and soul-searching mode of some of the higher-profile climate books of the last few years."
The only realistic solution to carbon removal is massive government investment, like most other major Silicon Valley core technologies. We need the Green New Deal. Anything less is posturing. I would even go so far as to say that on an issue of this importance, where we have maybe a decade left to turn the tide, giving the impression that private enterprise can solve it is irresponsible. Put those donations into GND…
We need a clean bill that only reduces or outright zeros net carbon output, including carbon generated from imports and exports.
It's no good if we just export pollution somewhere else.
The Green New Deal is not that bill.
It is packed with a massive pile of changes to healthcare, finance, and labor laws which are totally unrelated to addressing carbon emissions. Not to mention the call for Venezuela-style nationalization.
That's a non-starter, and rightly so.
If you can't put aside power-grabs and partisan politics to tackle climate change, then you clearly do not care about fixing climate change.
If the GND passes, the important-to-humans part (carbon) will go to the back of the political bus, and the important-to-the-oligarchs part (more power! more money!) will be put in the drivers' seat.
The only realistic solution to carbon removal is massive government investment, like most other major Silicon Valley core technologies. We need the Green New Deal. Anything less is posturing. I would even go so far as to say that on an issue of this importance, where we have maybe a decade left to turn the tide, giving the impression that private enterprise can solve it is irresponsible. Put those donations into GND…
Government investment is essentially a form of planned economy. There's lots of examples of that not working so well. I'd argue that the most effective solution is a carbon tax, applied on any carbon which leaves the ground. That would create incredibly strong market conditions for energy saving technologies, and provide a big cost advantage to renewable energy. We know that pricing effects consumer behaviour. The oi…
You mean like this?
https://unherd.com/2018/06/government-agency-made-silicon-va...
The only realistic solution to carbon removal is massive government investment, like most other major Silicon Valley core technologies. We need the Green New Deal. Anything less is posturing. I would even go so far as to say that on an issue of this importance, where we have maybe a decade left to turn the tide, giving the impression that private enterprise can solve it is irresponsible. Put those donations into GND…
The politicians pushing the GND do not care about climate change. We need a clean bill that only reduces or outright zeros net carbon output, including carbon generated from imports and exports. It's no good if we just export pollution somewhere else. The Green New Deal is not that bill. It is packed with a massive pile of changes to healthcare, finance, and labor laws which are totally unrelated to addressing carbon…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement
It failed. We have to approach this as a complex sociopolitical problem and it will likely require some broader changes to our 200 plus year old economic system.
(And did you say you think GND calls for more power to oligarchs? That’s a weird take.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The politicians pushing the GND do not care about climate change. We need a clean bill that only reduces or outright zeros net carbon output, including carbon generated from imports and exports. It's no good if we just export pollution somewhere else. The Green New Deal is not that bill. It is packed with a massive pile of changes to healthcare, finance, and labor laws which are totally unrelated to addressing carbon…
That’s a failed theory. This is what happens when you try to address carbon output without looking at healthcare, finance, labor laws and the impacts on the working class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement It failed. We have to approach this as a complex sociopolitical problem and it will likely require some broader changes to our 200 plus year old economic system. (And did you say you think GND cal…
> "The yellow vests movement or yellow jackets movement (French: Mouvement des gilets jaunes, pronounced [muvmɑ̃ de ʒilɛ ʒon]) is a populist,[64] grassroots[65] protest movement for economic justice[66]"
The goals listed for the movement, also from that article:
> Increase in the French minimum wage[37], End to austerity measures[38], Improved standard of living[38], Government transparency and accountability[38], Improved government services for rural areas[38], and Constitutional proposal for Citizens' initiative referendum, including constitutional, legislative, abrogative, and recall initiatives[39]
The words "climate change" appear once in the entire article.
Looks to me like climate change was told to sit at the back of the political bus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a failed theory. This is what happens when you try to address carbon output without looking at healthcare, finance, labor laws and the impacts on the working class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement It failed. We have to approach this as a complex sociopolitical problem and it will likely require some broader changes to our 200 plus year old economic system. (And did you say you think GND cal…
The first line of your linked Wikipedia article[1] reads: > "The yellow vests movement or yellow jackets movement (French: Mouvement des gilets jaunes, pronounced [muvmɑ̃ de ʒilɛ ʒon]) is a populist,[64] grassroots[65] protest movement for economic justice[66]" The goals listed for the movement, also from that article: > Increase in the French minimum wage[37], End to austerity measures[38], Improved standard of livi…
More detail (linked from the Wikipedia article): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/16/gilet-jaunes-y...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this isn't quite right - if you use zero carbon sources (e.g. solar) to power carbon removal the operation would be net carbon negative. "but why wouldn't you just use that solar capacity to displace coal plants on the electricity grid??????" there's already a rapid switch of installed electrical capacity from fossil fuels to solar/wind, but electricity typically accounts for 20% of a developed economy's emissions, s…
Agreed on the need to invest in carbon capture now. My main argument was that a) reducing emissions to ~0 is going to be necessary even if we invent some insanely efficient carbon sequestration tech; b) the longer we wait, the worse the problem gets, in an exponential way. Emissions reproduce; c) Therefore the bulk of our effort should be spent trying to get emissions down to 0. Because if we fail at that (a task tha…
If in 20 years 1% of our emissions remain but they are accompanied by capture (with a multiplier to account for inefficiencies in capture) then that would be ok by me.
(You'd still want the extra carbon removal to reverse the warming caused by past emissions ofc)