5 ms·

It seems like we're discovering a bunch of technologies that involve removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere now (and even using it as a resource). That isn

It seems like we're discovering a bunch of technologies that involve removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere now (and even using it as a resource). That isn't the only problem gas, but I'm optimistic that we will solve the "greenhouse effect" problem through this sort of climate engineering before the real disaster of rising sea levels gets too far. In a century people will probably be freaked out by a host of issues we've barely even thought of today (things like the Kessler syndrome that are not so top-of-the-mind).

vkou 10y ago
The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. Either way, it would be far cheaper to switch our energy production to renewables, then to geo-engineer on a planet scale. We aren't doing that in any meaningful way. Instead we pat ourselves on the back for reducing US coal energy generation to 37%. Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas...
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas... It's still a huge improvement, cutting CO2 output by half and eliminating other byproducts.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Except that overall CO2 output has been steady since 2008. Yes, there has been GDP growth since then, which is great... But the atmosphere doesn't care about GDP. What it needs are reductions.
    - sliverstorm 10y ago
      Keeping CO2 output steady instead of rising with ever-growing population size & energy appetite is, I think, an important first victory. The work is by no means done, but Rome wasn't built in a day.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. Homes aren't the only thing destroyed by rising sealevels. Arable land that is under saltwater is a lot less arable.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Most arable land isn't coastal though - and most coastlines are urban. If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry. As another poster mentioned, the land doesn't have to be underwater to become unusable, but rising sea levels have a limited reach.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Most arable land isn't coastal though A very large share of arable land is at a low elevation above sea level along waterways; land distance from the coast doesn't control the effect of sea-level rise. > If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry. Well, except that its impossible geographically to do that without also flooding inland arable areas. Flooding America's coastline also means flooding (among other prime agricultural areas) much of California's Central Valley.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. A good chunk of arable land and aquifers will be affected by rising sea levels as well. Really, our only hope is somehow all that land that is too cold to farm now...becomes more practical to farm. :/
  - dharma1 10y ago
    James Lovelock, the inventor of Electron Capture Detector, which he used to discover CFC's, and the person behind the Gaia theory, predicts that only Canada, Northern Europe and Siberia will be habitable in the later part of this century. www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/james-lovelock-the-prophet-20071101
    - fweespeech 10y ago
      Yes but its more than just habitability. Soil condition/quality as well as availability of water, etc. is important for farming.
      - dharma1 10y ago
        Very true - there will be a limit to what size of a population can be sustained by farming within those northern areas. Whatever that number is, it's probably not 9 billion people

vkou 10y ago

The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. Either way, it would be far cheaper to switch our energy production to renewables, then to geo-engineer on a planet scale. We aren't doing that in any meaningful way. Instead we pat ourselves on the back for reducing US coal energy generation to 37%. Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas...

sliverstorm 10y ago
Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas... It's still a huge improvement, cutting CO2 output by half and eliminating other byproducts.
- vkou 10y ago
  Except that overall CO2 output has been steady since 2008. Yes, there has been GDP growth since then, which is great... But the atmosphere doesn't care about GDP. What it needs are reductions.
  - sliverstorm 10y ago
    Keeping CO2 output steady instead of rising with ever-growing population size & energy appetite is, I think, an important first victory. The work is by no means done, but Rome wasn't built in a day.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. Homes aren't the only thing destroyed by rising sealevels. Arable land that is under saltwater is a lot less arable.
- vkou 10y ago
  Most arable land isn't coastal though - and most coastlines are urban. If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry. As another poster mentioned, the land doesn't have to be underwater to become unusable, but rising sea levels have a limited reach.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Most arable land isn't coastal though A very large share of arable land is at a low elevation above sea level along waterways; land distance from the coast doesn't control the effect of sea-level rise. > If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry. Well, except that its impossible geographically to do that without also flooding inland arable areas. Flooding America's coastline also means flooding (among other prime agricultural areas) much of California's Central Valley.
fweespeech 10y ago
> The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. A good chunk of arable land and aquifers will be affected by rising sea levels as well. Really, our only hope is somehow all that land that is too cold to farm now...becomes more practical to farm. :/
- dharma1 10y ago
  James Lovelock, the inventor of Electron Capture Detector, which he used to discover CFC's, and the person behind the Gaia theory, predicts that only Canada, Northern Europe and Siberia will be habitable in the later part of this century. www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/james-lovelock-the-prophet-20071101
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    Yes but its more than just habitability. Soil condition/quality as well as availability of water, etc. is important for farming.
    - dharma1 10y ago
      Very true - there will be a limit to what size of a population can be sustained by farming within those northern areas. Whatever that number is, it's probably not 9 billion people