3 ms·

Wouldn't it be better to stop pollution and let the Earth recover on her own accord in time?

by dfarts 10y ago

jdavis703 10y ago
That's never going to happen. Americans will never give up their trucks. The Chinese won't give up their coal fired power plants. Developing nations won't give up slash and burn forestry programs. Why? Because we're all motivated by greed. Instead I think the solution is to make pollution expensive: some have proposed a carbon tax as one way of dealing with this. Perhaps there are other ways involving behavioral economics or something that could also be attempted.
- eloff 10y ago
  I think you're right in that any lasting solution must come about because it's in our best short term economic interests - because, by and large, it's how we make our decisions
- LargoLasskhyfv 10y ago
  Lookie, lookie! Isn't it spooky? Just now: http://atomicinsights.com/will-china-convert-existing-coal-plants-nuclear-using-htr-pm-reactors/ http://atomicinsights.com/will-china-convert-existing-coal-p... Recently: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Irradiation-trials-of-HTR-PM-fuel-completed-0501154.html http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Irradiation-trials-of-... A while ago: https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2014/2014-04-08-04-11-TM-NPTDS/2_Li01.pdf https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2014... & http://atomicinsights.com/htr-pm-nuclear-heated-gas-producing-superheated-steam/ http://atomicinsights.com/htr-pm-nuclear-heated-gas-producin... Once upon a time, a road not taken: http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/10/primer-on-nuclear-safety-25-defense-in.html http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/10/primer-on-nuclear-s... So, despite all the knowledge surrounding this, only China seems trying to implement this currently, after the Germans failed miserably. Search for skyshine here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor and mishandling mechanics here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 So, who again insists on staying with coal power? (Pick your poison)
- astrodust 10y ago
  Americans are giving up on their trucks: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/07/the-clearest-explanation-yet-for-why-millennials-are-driving-less/398366/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/07/the-clearest-explanat... China is giving up on coal fired power plants: http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crackdown-cancel-new-power-plants/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crack... Why? Because things change.
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    There are some encouraging trends, but the progress they've made to date is still very small compared to the size of the problem. Perhaps the most encouraging trend is the exponential growth of the photovoltaic solar panel industry. If that continues, it will certainly be a huge help. But you have to weigh that against the fact that there are still a couple of billion people with no access to power at all. All together, world carbon emissions are not likely to fall anytime soon.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      A 40% decline in licenses is not "very small". It's enormous. Likewise China realized it couldn't double down on coal indefinitely, they had to back off. When your pollution becomes so bad planes can't take off you have to re-think your strategy. China used coal because it was cost-effective, but now the costs of coal are too high to sustain its use. They're just going where the money is, and right now that's solar. China itself doesn't have a lot of fossil fuels other than oil so naturally they're interested in something that makes them energy independent. Energy is, after all, power.
- lisivka 10y ago
  I agree: taxing of pollution will change behavior of polluters while also will gather money for ecological programs. European Union is already doing that: The total revenue from environmental taxes in the EU-28 in 2014 was EUR 343.6 billion; this figure equates to 2.5 % of gross domestic product (GDP) and to 6.3 % of the total revenues derived from all taxes and social contributions (see Table 1). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environmental_tax_statistics#Environmental_taxes_in_the_EU http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
eloff 10y ago
Wouldn't it be better if people in the Middle East would just get along? While we're dreaming of things that are out of reach for the time being.
notadoc 10y ago
Find a way to monetize not polluting and get everyone to sign onto it, and that may have a chance. Otherwise, it's not happening.
- beevai142 10y ago
  Carbon tax, governmental action.
  - pasiaj 10y ago
    -> Trump
  - 08-15 10y ago
    Does not work, as far as anyone can see. However, assume it did. Then ocean acidification is still a first world problem. If you're the government of a developing country (India, China, Brazil, ...) where most people don't even have reliable electricity, and you get to choose between washing machines for your people and a more basic ocean, you go for the washing machines. And you will burn gigatons of coal to enable those washing machines. Globally speaking, government action will not work, because most governments don't care (for good reasons, arguably). On top of that, international agreements are mostly concerned with non-solutions like a reduction of carbon emission by some irrelevant fraction by a time when it's too late (like 50% by 2050 or some such nonsense). Even if the first world managed to do that, the growth of the developing countries annihilates any such progress within a decade. And even if the whole world was on board and reduced global emissions by 50%, we'd just fuck up the planet half as quickly, but every bit as reliably. The reality is that if global climate change really is such a big problem, we need to get to zero carbon emissions, actually negative carbon emissions, fairly quickly. Your dream of a world police enforcing zero carbon emissions collides with the reality that they (the UN or whoever else is closest to a "world government") aren't even trying, and that they don't actually have an alternative plan.
benchaney 10y ago
That would be nice, but from what we have heard from scientists, we are past the loping of no return and guaranteed massive extinctions.

Wouldn't it be better to stop pollution and let the Earth recover on her own accord in time?

by dfarts 10y ago

Wouldn't it be better to stop pollution and let the Earth recover on her own accord in time?

That's never going to happen. Americans will never give up their trucks. The Chinese won't give up their coal fired power plants. Developing nations won't give up slash and burn forestry programs. Why? Because we're all motivated by greed. Instead I think the solution is to make pollution expensive: some have proposed a carbon tax as one way of dealing with this. Perhaps there are other ways involving behavioral economics or something that could also be attempted.

eloff 10y ago
I think you're right in that any lasting solution must come about because it's in our best short term economic interests - because, by and large, it's how we make our decisions
LargoLasskhyfv 10y ago
Lookie, lookie! Isn't it spooky? Just now: http://atomicinsights.com/will-china-convert-existing-coal-plants-nuclear-using-htr-pm-reactors/ http://atomicinsights.com/will-china-convert-existing-coal-p... Recently: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Irradiation-trials-of-HTR-PM-fuel-completed-0501154.html http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Irradiation-trials-of-... A while ago: https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2014/2014-04-08-04-11-TM-NPTDS/2_Li01.pdf https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2014... & http://atomicinsights.com/htr-pm-nuclear-heated-gas-producing-superheated-steam/ http://atomicinsights.com/htr-pm-nuclear-heated-gas-producin... Once upon a time, a road not taken: http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/10/primer-on-nuclear-safety-25-defense-in.html http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/10/primer-on-nuclear-s... So, despite all the knowledge surrounding this, only China seems trying to implement this currently, after the Germans failed miserably. Search for skyshine here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor and mishandling mechanics here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 So, who again insists on staying with coal power? (Pick your poison)
astrodust 10y ago
Americans are giving up on their trucks: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/07/the-clearest-explanation-yet-for-why-millennials-are-driving-less/398366/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/07/the-clearest-explanat... China is giving up on coal fired power plants: http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crackdown-cancel-new-power-plants/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crack... Why? Because things change.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  There are some encouraging trends, but the progress they've made to date is still very small compared to the size of the problem. Perhaps the most encouraging trend is the exponential growth of the photovoltaic solar panel industry. If that continues, it will certainly be a huge help. But you have to weigh that against the fact that there are still a couple of billion people with no access to power at all. All together, world carbon emissions are not likely to fall anytime soon.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    A 40% decline in licenses is not "very small". It's enormous. Likewise China realized it couldn't double down on coal indefinitely, they had to back off. When your pollution becomes so bad planes can't take off you have to re-think your strategy. China used coal because it was cost-effective, but now the costs of coal are too high to sustain its use. They're just going where the money is, and right now that's solar. China itself doesn't have a lot of fossil fuels other than oil so naturally they're interested in something that makes them energy independent. Energy is, after all, power.
lisivka 10y ago
I agree: taxing of pollution will change behavior of polluters while also will gather money for ecological programs. European Union is already doing that: The total revenue from environmental taxes in the EU-28 in 2014 was EUR 343.6 billion; this figure equates to 2.5 % of gross domestic product (GDP) and to 6.3 % of the total revenues derived from all taxes and social contributions (see Table 1). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environmental_tax_statistics#Environmental_taxes_in_the_EU http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

eloff 10y ago

Wouldn't it be better if people in the Middle East would just get along? While we're dreaming of things that are out of reach for the time being.

notadoc 10y ago

Find a way to monetize not polluting and get everyone to sign onto it, and that may have a chance. Otherwise, it's not happening.

beevai142 10y ago
Carbon tax, governmental action.
- pasiaj 10y ago
  -> Trump
- 08-15 10y ago
  Does not work, as far as anyone can see. However, assume it did. Then ocean acidification is still a first world problem. If you're the government of a developing country (India, China, Brazil, ...) where most people don't even have reliable electricity, and you get to choose between washing machines for your people and a more basic ocean, you go for the washing machines. And you will burn gigatons of coal to enable those washing machines. Globally speaking, government action will not work, because most governments don't care (for good reasons, arguably). On top of that, international agreements are mostly concerned with non-solutions like a reduction of carbon emission by some irrelevant fraction by a time when it's too late (like 50% by 2050 or some such nonsense). Even if the first world managed to do that, the growth of the developing countries annihilates any such progress within a decade. And even if the whole world was on board and reduced global emissions by 50%, we'd just fuck up the planet half as quickly, but every bit as reliably. The reality is that if global climate change really is such a big problem, we need to get to zero carbon emissions, actually negative carbon emissions, fairly quickly. Your dream of a world police enforcing zero carbon emissions collides with the reality that they (the UN or whoever else is closest to a "world government") aren't even trying, and that they don't actually have an alternative plan.

benchaney 10y ago

That would be nice, but from what we have heard from scientists, we are past the loping of no return and guaranteed massive extinctions.