We need a video game where all global planetary effects are simulated. Like civilization or alpha centauri but with plot twist regarding global warming.
Our children will finally get it.
Carbon Removal Technologies
501–510 of 682 posts
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, this is really skewed towards the 1%, even if you meant it the other way. You do know that the global middle class yearly income is 1-3k a year, right? That's probably less than a typical American food budget. It's fine if you want the US to stop growing. But the rest of the world would desperately like to grow more. And that's 90% of the world's population. It's also naive to think it's easier to redistribute w…
> It's fine if you want the US to stop growing. But the rest of the world would desperately like to grow more. And that's 90% of the world's population. I see the old "[technological] man's burden" is as magnanimous as ever. ;) Why is the rest of the world desperately poor? It's absurd to imagine that it's because the free enterprise West wants to help that 90%, but is held back by... anti-growth activists. Nothing c…
My core argument is that using technology to help curb CO2 emissions is a way to solve the problem that is something we can do, and that ideological solutions - let's rework our society or kill half the population - aren't as easy. To say that we should turn from a growth-based economy to a sustainable economy is much more difficult to create a plan of action for than to create a technological solution.
Ideological solutions have their own stains on history as well, compared to technical solutions - Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all have something to say about that.
There's no need to attack technical solutions as an epidemic on society. If you argued that society is an epidemic on society, that's a different story, but I would counter and say that there exist bad and good rich people, as well as bad and good technological outcomes, and bad and good ideological outcomes. To cherry pick the bad aspects is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am working on a non-profit that is utilizing Schuiling's research and is actually getting this project done. We are scouting beaches right now for a "wiggle" tank, which is a sort of see-saw like device where we can gather data to affirm the real world dissolution rate. The chemistry, however, is sound that each 1 ton of olivine will sequester 1.25 tons of carbon. By the end of 2019 we hope to have our first olivin…
That's awesome - I would be one of the people who would pay $400 to be carbon neutral each year. You should think big and do a Kickstarter with $25 gifts up to $5k gifts... For $400 I want a t-shirt that says "I'm carbon neutral. Do you have the rocks to become carbon neutral too?" with a pic of olivine rocks and your website url.
You'll pay $400 to be carbon neutral!?
Why don't you just stop eating meat, stop driving, stop whatever else that you do and have a smaller carbon footprint naturally, instead of living a carbon lavish life and paying some money to be called carbon neutral.
Its like bribing your way out of jail after you have done the crime.
[EDIT]: removed expletives
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's fine if you want the US to stop growing. But the rest of the world would desperately like to grow more. And that's 90% of the world's population. I see the old "[technological] man's burden" is as magnanimous as ever. ;) Why is the rest of the world desperately poor? It's absurd to imagine that it's because the free enterprise West wants to help that 90%, but is held back by... anti-growth activists. Nothing c…
My core argument is that using technology to help curb CO2 emissions is a way to solve the problem that is something we can do, and that ideological solutions - let's rework our society or kill half the population - aren't as easy. To say that we should turn from a growth-based economy to a sustainable economy is much more difficult to create a plan of action for than to create a technological solution. Ideological s…
...assuming there is a technological solution.
My core argument is that "endless growth = good" is an ideological problem, and it requires an ideological solution. Without changing the goal of the system, any tech solution will inevitable be used simply to enable more growth (see: Jevon's Paradox).
Here's part of a talk by seminal systems theorist Donella Meadows, who explains it better than I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuIoego-xVc&t=13m55s
>There's no need to attack technical solutions as an epidemic on society.
We do need to be realistic about technology, including its downsides. I'm countering the one-sided perspective of technology as bloodless hard work & ingenuity. Perhaps true for the colonizer, but not the colonized.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is Kumar from YCS2012. I really really wish YC would bring on a polymer, nuclear, petroleum, or materials engineer to help wrangle on these thesis-es on all things related to energy. [I'm more on the textiles side of polymers, but I'm here if you need me.] Trees are not a great carbon removal technology, grasslands are much better as they aren't impacted by fires and droughts. Grasslands sequester carbon undergr…
What do you think about perennial grains that sequester carbon underground, like Kernza? https://www.greenbiz.com/article/could-perennial-grains-be-n...
From what I understand, it can sequester carbon because its roots run pretty deep. But then what? Won't the soil become saturated with carbon? Or isn't that an issue?
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coal consumption has already peaked in the USA, France, UK, Canada, (probably) China, and a number of other countries. Emissions intensity and absolute emissions from the electricity sector has already peaked in multiple countries. The cost of electrifying automobiles and generating low-emissions renewable electricity is much lower than a generation ago. On the other hand, global fossil fuel use has not peaked yet. G…
On the other hand, global fossil fuel use has not peaked yet. Global population has not peaked yet. Indeed, but if solar power is now the preferred energy source, solar power could be being used for all new energy need as well as help us cut back on fossil fuel's original usage. But it's not. That's a world-killing problem. What we're out of is laize faire options. Neither sequestering nor dramatic winding down of fo…
Solar power is not the preferred energy source before we figured out storage. Just because the marginal cost of adding a watt of solar is currently lower than adding a watt of coal that doesn't mean that we can switch off coal plants and replace them with solar.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Many environmentalists like to argue that curtailment is the “proper” way to handle global warming. If the situation is half as dire as they are claiming it is, then that is simply not good enough.
Here's the thing. Environmentalists have been warning about climate change for generations now. Calling for replacements for fossil fuel and for drastic cuts in emmissions and consumption. Basically nobody acted. And now the situation is becoming dire. Suddenly curtailmennt is off the table because it's no longer enough? It's never even been tried or seriously considered. Pretty much no developed country is on track…
OK, so here's the thing from a politician's point of view:
If you do something fairly extreme for curtailment, like a tax on fuel that motorists really notice, the other party will get voted in and they'll undo it. Now you've got kicked out of office, with no environmental benefit to show for it.
And if you go further with something like a ban on pet dogs or ban on meat-eating? Same thing but faster and with more certainty.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm working on a way to bring dollars to carbon removal, whether as simple as planting trees or investing in these more advanced upcoming technologies. It is an app with a personal pledge to balance the negative impact of your own driving and flying with a small payment. Cheap at just a couple dollars a week, with the potential to reach a significant scale through companies. In fact, I look forward to hearing back fr…
This is great. We need a verified system where know exactly where each dollar is spend and how many CO2 tons are saved per dollar spent
Does https://www.goldstandard.org/ not do that already?
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you'd like to fund trees, one could start buying land and start protecting trees. Spending that money on intensive lobbying and forest advocacy in rapidly-deforesting countries could have an impact, too. The trick, of course, is that neither of these techniques compound for the individual nor a startup. They are pure charity for the planet.
>The trick, of course, is that neither of these techniques compound for the individual nor a startup. They are pure charity for the planet. "Doesn't concentrate wealth exponentially; BZZT rejected!" At some point, we apparently forgot that wealth/power inequality itself massively contributes to environmental problems. * If you have no political power, you can't defend yourself and your land from pollution. * If a lar…
Better timecode link (the relevant comments are here in Part 2, but the whole thing is worth watching): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuIoego-xVc&t=10m30s
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn’t. There won’t be. Fair warning, this is a cynical, but honest comment, and it’s not defeatist, but acceptance of our collective nature. I’ve roughly gauged most of our species moves on climate accurately so far. I bet that We are going to go full bore on geo engineering. It’s the perfect eco-poli-socio fix, and is a perfect storm to fill a lot of our mental blind spots. Geo engineering is jobs, and economi…
Plastic releases little CO2 into the air and its environment negatives are minimal if deposed of in a landfill. If CO2 and other external pollution sources were highly taxed, plastic prices could even go down as burning oil for energy is phased out and non-taxed oil used for plastics drops in price.
Sure, local commodity price changes are not predictable. But the point I am making still stands.