4 ms·

I’m banking on carbon capture being the obvious solution. Environmentalists (I do not count myself in their number) are resisting this because they’re worried i

by sulam 9y ago

I’m banking on carbon capture being the obvious solution. Environmentalists (I do not count myself in their number) are resisting this because they’re worried it will lead to an attitude of complaisancy about human emissions. My point of view is that we already are grossly under shooting targets that bake in massive effects we haven’t begun to properly appreciate. Add in factors we can’t control like the feedback loop described in the parent and it literally isn’t going matter if we drop emissions to zero tomorrow. Therefore we need to start investing in remediation and carbon capture is the obvious best bet. I’m to the point where I’m literally building the case and background to chase this myself. Tech has been financially good to me and I plan to spend the rest of whatever time I have on the planet trying to make sure the same opportunities exist in the future for others.

dredmorbius 9y ago
It is insanely expensive. There are carbon-capture devices already extant. Solar-powered. Self-replicating. They're called "plants". Problem is that 1) you've got to sequester the carbon formed, 2) there's only so much ag productivity (measured in terms of carbon fixation) on the planet, and 3) it is largely spoken for -- humans claim 40% of net primary productivity, the rest of the planet fights over the remaining 60%. I'd strongly recommend you start sorting out what the environmentalists (or at least ecologists) have been doing for the past century or so. Their models strike me as vastly more sound than those who claim other affiliations. BAU is not sustainable. The question is which of the other-than-usual tracks we select. Or allow to be selected for us.
- sulam 9y ago
  There is already non-ag ambient carbon capture happening at commercial scale. Also, if you limit yourself to what exists today, you can easily draw a straight line to “doomed”. I don’t mind if you choose to limit yourself, but I am going to try and create the future I want my children (and others) to have vs settling for status quo.

by sulam 9y ago

dredmorbius 9y ago

It is insanely expensive. There are carbon-capture devices already extant. Solar-powered. Self-replicating. They're called "plants". Problem is that 1) you've got to sequester the carbon formed, 2) there's only so much ag productivity (measured in terms of carbon fixation) on the planet, and 3) it is largely spoken for -- humans claim 40% of net primary productivity, the rest of the planet fights over the remaining 60%. I'd strongly recommend you start sorting out what the environmentalists (or at least ecologists) have been doing for the past century or so. Their models strike me as vastly more sound than those who claim other affiliations. BAU is not sustainable. The question is which of the other-than-usual tracks we select. Or allow to be selected for us.

sulam 9y ago
There is already non-ag ambient carbon capture happening at commercial scale. Also, if you limit yourself to what exists today, you can easily draw a straight line to “doomed”. I don’t mind if you choose to limit yourself, but I am going to try and create the future I want my children (and others) to have vs settling for status quo.