4 ms·

Any estimation on the co2 output building said walls and surrounding Greenland and Antarctic with them. What about animals the navigate through these waters.

by w-ll 8y ago

Any estimation on the co2 output building said walls and surrounding Greenland and Antarctic with them. What about animals the navigate through these waters. This just doesn't seem like a well thought idea to me.

King-Aaron 8y ago
> What about animals the navigate through these waters This is going to sound mighty unpopular - it already does to me while I try to formulate the right way to say this in my head... But at what point do we need to conclude that saving the nearly 8-billion human beings and the overall habitability of the Earth is of greater importance than certain animals living in individual biomes? I know it's not the contemporary, popular thing to think about. But if the alternative is the mass displacement and deaths of humans, it feels like it's something we're going to have to make a decision on.
- matte_black 8y ago
  I feel if this problem was tackled in the 1950s our ancestors would have solved it and not thought twice about the animals. But here we are almost in the year 2020, and our sense of moral obligation holds us back from using our advanced technology to its maximum potential, even to save our own lives or pursue new horizons.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    Maybe its 'cause that maximum potential or whatever is what got us into this mess in the first place.
    - matte_black 8y ago
      What if now it’s the only thing that could get us out...
  - ageofwant 8y ago
    You are an animal. You breath the same air and eat the same food other animals eat. Our species won't even be the last species left when resources become severely restricted due to one species' hyper-abundance and destructive environmental adaption.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- peanutz454 8y ago
  But is the alternative mass displacement and deaths? How about reducing carbon footprint? For example - wash our dishes in cold water? People live in deserts too, and they eat from clean dishes using maybe 5% the water we do in cities. How about reducing our dependency on private cars. We humans are responsible for our lavish lives, and therefore rising temperatures. We could stop eating beef but we don't care enough about our planet's future. Try these for unpopular opinions. Do we really have to live such carefree lives?
  - ux-app 8y ago
    > How about reducing carbon footprint? For example - wash our dishes in cold water? I've never lived in the US, so anyone, please correct me if i'm wrong, but anecdotally I have heard that Americans don't generally have (or use) outdoor clothes lines to dry their washed clothes, rather they just use a dryer. I live in Australia and when I learned this I was floored. That approach is unthinkable in Australia due to our astronomical energy costs (South Aus, where I live has the highest energy cost in the world). With our high prices, we only very occasionally use dryers which are a horribly inefficient way to dry clothes. Maybe the solution to affect peoples' behaviour is to dramatically increase the cost of (dirty) energy.
    - MagnumOpus 8y ago
      > dramatically increase the cost of (dirty) energy That is called a carbon tax. It is supported by every serious economist on the left and right, as well as by the majority of the US population. It is also in place in most EU countries, most Canadian provinces, Japan and India.
      - ivankolev 8y ago
        Unfortunately for Ontarians, newly elected Doug Ford is killing the cap and trade in the province: https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/15/doug-ford-puts-gasoline-companies-on-notice-over-weekend-price-hikes.html https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/15/doug-ford...
    - 8y ago
- phs318u 8y ago
  Well, I can sympathise with the “this is going to be unpopular but...” cos that’s where I’m going too, though a bit different to you. A very large number of human beings, even among those that accept the science of climate change and it’s likely consequences, have proven remarkably resistant to ANY persuasion to voluntarily moderate their lifestyles even a little to make the kind of changes that, if they were made en-masse, could mitigate the worst impacts. They are even MORE resistant to even mild attempts to impose change by way of a carbon pricing mechanism. God forbid I may have to pay 5% more for certain goods, or that I should sacrifice one of my SUVs. My main gripe therefore with these geoengineering proposals is twofold. 1. On what planet where we we’re not willing to pay even a modest price on carbon, are we going to be willing to pay trillions for geoengineering projects? 2. Geoengineering is yet another reflection of that innate human desire to externalise costs as much as possible. Whether that be the cost of labour, pollution, or climate change. It’s always the ‘other’ that should bear the worst costs - the third world, the whales, the forests, whatever. The attitude of placing greater importance on ‘us’ over everything and everyone else is exactly what got us into this fine mess, AND STILL IS. You may think your view is unpopular but only insofar as people don’t actually want to hear the truth about themselves. Note: I’m already aware that my two points may be slightly contradictory.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > 1. On what planet where we we’re not willing to pay even a modest price on carbon, are we going to be willing to pay trillions for geoengineering projects? So. Much. Fucking. Carbon. Trillions is nothing if it means no consumer-level caps on carbon output for the next generation or two.
    - phs318u 8y ago
      > ...it means no consumer-level caps on carbon output for the next generation or two. So not a permanent fix then. Just kick that can down the road and let your grandkids sort it out. That’s exactly what I meant by externalising costs and getting someone else to pay, in this case the future.
  - nine_k 8y ago
- samplatt 8y ago
  The thing we've been learning over the last 50 years is that catastrophic failure of one biome usually causes failure of other biomes. Even discounting feeding 8 billion humans, just the maintenance required in keeping Spaceship Earth in a state (reliably) hospitable to humans is a surprisingly extensive task.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
larkeith 8y ago
Nitpick: It's specifically surrounding major glacier outlets, not all of (or even a significant portion of) the landmasses. A complete surround would be effectively impossible.

by w-ll 8y ago

King-Aaron 8y ago

> What about animals the navigate through these waters This is going to sound mighty unpopular - it already does to me while I try to formulate the right way to say this in my head... But at what point do we need to conclude that saving the nearly 8-billion human beings and the overall habitability of the Earth is of greater importance than certain animals living in individual biomes? I know it's not the contemporary, popular thing to think about. But if the alternative is the mass displacement and deaths of humans, it feels like it's something we're going to have to make a decision on.

matte_black 8y ago
I feel if this problem was tackled in the 1950s our ancestors would have solved it and not thought twice about the animals. But here we are almost in the year 2020, and our sense of moral obligation holds us back from using our advanced technology to its maximum potential, even to save our own lives or pursue new horizons.
- danharaj 8y ago
  Maybe its 'cause that maximum potential or whatever is what got us into this mess in the first place.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    What if now it’s the only thing that could get us out...
- ageofwant 8y ago
  You are an animal. You breath the same air and eat the same food other animals eat. Our species won't even be the last species left when resources become severely restricted due to one species' hyper-abundance and destructive environmental adaption.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
peanutz454 8y ago
But is the alternative mass displacement and deaths? How about reducing carbon footprint? For example - wash our dishes in cold water? People live in deserts too, and they eat from clean dishes using maybe 5% the water we do in cities. How about reducing our dependency on private cars. We humans are responsible for our lavish lives, and therefore rising temperatures. We could stop eating beef but we don't care enough about our planet's future. Try these for unpopular opinions. Do we really have to live such carefree lives?
- ux-app 8y ago
  > How about reducing carbon footprint? For example - wash our dishes in cold water? I've never lived in the US, so anyone, please correct me if i'm wrong, but anecdotally I have heard that Americans don't generally have (or use) outdoor clothes lines to dry their washed clothes, rather they just use a dryer. I live in Australia and when I learned this I was floored. That approach is unthinkable in Australia due to our astronomical energy costs (South Aus, where I live has the highest energy cost in the world). With our high prices, we only very occasionally use dryers which are a horribly inefficient way to dry clothes. Maybe the solution to affect peoples' behaviour is to dramatically increase the cost of (dirty) energy.
  - MagnumOpus 8y ago
    > dramatically increase the cost of (dirty) energy That is called a carbon tax. It is supported by every serious economist on the left and right, as well as by the majority of the US population. It is also in place in most EU countries, most Canadian provinces, Japan and India.
    - ivankolev 8y ago
      Unfortunately for Ontarians, newly elected Doug Ford is killing the cap and trade in the province: https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/15/doug-ford-puts-gasoline-companies-on-notice-over-weekend-price-hikes.html https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/15/doug-ford...
  - 8y ago
phs318u 8y ago
Well, I can sympathise with the “this is going to be unpopular but...” cos that’s where I’m going too, though a bit different to you. A very large number of human beings, even among those that accept the science of climate change and it’s likely consequences, have proven remarkably resistant to ANY persuasion to voluntarily moderate their lifestyles even a little to make the kind of changes that, if they were made en-masse, could mitigate the worst impacts. They are even MORE resistant to even mild attempts to impose change by way of a carbon pricing mechanism. God forbid I may have to pay 5% more for certain goods, or that I should sacrifice one of my SUVs. My main gripe therefore with these geoengineering proposals is twofold. 1. On what planet where we we’re not willing to pay even a modest price on carbon, are we going to be willing to pay trillions for geoengineering projects? 2. Geoengineering is yet another reflection of that innate human desire to externalise costs as much as possible. Whether that be the cost of labour, pollution, or climate change. It’s always the ‘other’ that should bear the worst costs - the third world, the whales, the forests, whatever. The attitude of placing greater importance on ‘us’ over everything and everyone else is exactly what got us into this fine mess, AND STILL IS. You may think your view is unpopular but only insofar as people don’t actually want to hear the truth about themselves. Note: I’m already aware that my two points may be slightly contradictory.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > 1. On what planet where we we’re not willing to pay even a modest price on carbon, are we going to be willing to pay trillions for geoengineering projects? So. Much. Fucking. Carbon. Trillions is nothing if it means no consumer-level caps on carbon output for the next generation or two.
  - phs318u 8y ago
    > ...it means no consumer-level caps on carbon output for the next generation or two. So not a permanent fix then. Just kick that can down the road and let your grandkids sort it out. That’s exactly what I meant by externalising costs and getting someone else to pay, in this case the future.
- nine_k 8y ago
samplatt 8y ago
The thing we've been learning over the last 50 years is that catastrophic failure of one biome usually causes failure of other biomes. Even discounting feeding 8 billion humans, just the maintenance required in keeping Spaceship Earth in a state (reliably) hospitable to humans is a surprisingly extensive task.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

larkeith 8y ago

Nitpick: It's specifically surrounding major glacier outlets, not all of (or even a significant portion of) the landmasses. A complete surround would be effectively impossible.