4 ms·

We have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? If you said to somebody with 100 billion d

We have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? If you said to somebody with 100 billion dollars: capture as much carbon as you can. What would they do? I would just plant trees for that money. Sure, we need basic research on carbon sequestration, but we need fundamental breakthroughs to make it happen. Time, we don't have.

nmeofthestate 8y ago
>We have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? Unfortunately we haven't invented the technology to implement your broad brush "solution" either. In fact, I'm skeptical about the claim Climate Change could have been solved generations ago, given that we still haven't developed the means to do it yet. Edit: okay, perhaps nuclear could provide us with the masses of power generation we need, but that's been ruled out.
- majewsky 8y ago
  > In fact, I'm skeptical about the claim Climate Change could have been solved generations ago, given that we still haven't developed the means to do it yet. Path dependence. We have not developed the means to solve climate change from where we are now.
erikrothoff 8y ago
Why bet the bank on us humans collectively being able to reduce all our emissions? There are problems will all approaches, a quick Google search pokes some holes in why planting trees is not a good idea: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/how-many-trees-would-i-have-to-plant-to-solve-global-warming https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/how-ma... So the billion dollar reward would be quite small sum in the grand scheme of things. And for example with a carbon tax, where collectors could offset emitters, it might also become a quite lucrative business.
ForHackernews 8y ago
> Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? Because it's too late. Unless magic non-existent carbon capture technology materializes soon, we're basically fucked. https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos... Check out that middle graphic. If we really want to avoid 1.5 degrees, and we can’t rely on large-scale carbon sequestration, then the global community has to zero out its carbon emissions by 2026. Ten years from now. That article is two years old and, to state the obvious, global CO2 emissions are not on track to reach zero in the next eight years.
- catawbasam 8y ago
  But the world doesn't end when we hit 1.5. We'll still be here, and we can still shape how much things change.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    > we can still shape how much things change. No we can't, because most of the CO2 has already been emitted: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-four-years-left-one-point-five-carbon-budget https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-four-years-left-one-poi... Unless you invent a time machine, or as postulated by OP, some magic sequestration technology to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it back in the ground, it's too late. It's like we're in a car that's driven over a cliff, and you're saying "Well, we're still here, as long as we invent a way for this car to fly in the next 15 seconds before impact, then we'll be okay"

nmeofthestate 8y ago

>We have a solution - reduce carbon/methane emissions. Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? Unfortunately we haven't invented the technology to implement your broad brush "solution" either. In fact, I'm skeptical about the claim Climate Change could have been solved generations ago, given that we still haven't developed the means to do it yet. Edit: okay, perhaps nuclear could provide us with the masses of power generation we need, but that's been ruled out.

majewsky 8y ago
> In fact, I'm skeptical about the claim Climate Change could have been solved generations ago, given that we still haven't developed the means to do it yet. Path dependence. We have not developed the means to solve climate change from where we are now.

erikrothoff 8y ago

Why bet the bank on us humans collectively being able to reduce all our emissions? There are problems will all approaches, a quick Google search pokes some holes in why planting trees is not a good idea: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/how-many-trees-would-i-have-to-plant-to-solve-global-warming https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/how-ma... So the billion dollar reward would be quite small sum in the grand scheme of things. And for example with a carbon tax, where collectors could offset emitters, it might also become a quite lucrative business.

ForHackernews 8y ago

> Why bet the bank on a technology that hasn't been invented yet? Because it's too late. Unless magic non-existent carbon capture technology materializes soon, we're basically fucked. https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos... Check out that middle graphic. If we really want to avoid 1.5 degrees, and we can’t rely on large-scale carbon sequestration, then the global community has to zero out its carbon emissions by 2026. Ten years from now. That article is two years old and, to state the obvious, global CO2 emissions are not on track to reach zero in the next eight years.

catawbasam 8y ago
But the world doesn't end when we hit 1.5. We'll still be here, and we can still shape how much things change.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  > we can still shape how much things change. No we can't, because most of the CO2 has already been emitted: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-four-years-left-one-point-five-carbon-budget https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-four-years-left-one-poi... Unless you invent a time machine, or as postulated by OP, some magic sequestration technology to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it back in the ground, it's too late. It's like we're in a car that's driven over a cliff, and you're saying "Well, we're still here, as long as we invent a way for this car to fly in the next 15 seconds before impact, then we'll be okay"