3 ms·
No you don't. Those were the results of millions of years. Don't dig it up? Okay, find alternate engery source which can support the way we live today. I am all
by yeukhon 10y ago
No you don't. Those were the results of millions of years. Don't dig it up? Okay, find alternate engery source which can support the way we live today. I am all for reduction (I believe in climate change), but what you said came out very aggressive and counter productive. So noz
- Gravityloss 10y agoIt's literally very ineffective to keep burning coal, dilute the CO2 to the atmosphere and then fantasize about collecting the 400 ppm ambient later. It would be easier to replace as much coal as possible with other forms of energy as soon as possible.
- yeukhon 10y agoWhat makes you think people aren't trying hard enough? It's the fact we haven't come up with an alternative clean source of energy able to sustain the rate of our current consumption. None of the green energy we know of can do that right now (be it too costly, or just not enough power generated).
- Gravityloss 10y agoIt doesn't have to be a 100% solution at first. The CO2 problem is cumulative. Every ton of coal left unburned is helpful. The earlier those nukes, windmills or solar panels go up, the more coal they displace. We just had an article on HN where Wyoming banned renewables.