6 ms·

The war is unwinnable. Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 lev

by rb808 8y ago

The war is unwinnable. Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 levels. Its just not going to happen. No one ever says that out loud. There is noise about reducing carbon emissions - in reality this is a lot of argument about reducing carbon emissions in wealthy countries. We can't even do that. Meanwhile even my greeny-lefty friends enjoy their central heating, imported food, masses of electronics and vacations in foreign countries. There is little hope in getting the world's peoples to reduce their quality of life. Generally everyone is happy to just blame Americans/China/Big Business/Coal/etc and keep on living as they please. Realistically not much is going to change. It might be possible to slow down the warming a little. But its going to get much more uncomfortable, its probably worth moving to somewhere cooler.

vowelless 8y ago
That is indeed what it seems like. We need a 10x improvement in this space. That can only happen with carbon capture and ability to regulate CO2 in the atmosphere. Not "planting trees", for God's sake. The whole conversation around emissions and the massive politicization of this is disappointing. Emissions reduction doesn't seem to do much. We need a Manhattan project to produce carbon and weather manipulation technology.
- cryoshon 8y ago
  we have the technology already: the cyanobacteria which produced the oxygen that ultimately became the earth's atmosphere. they're even better than trees because they're easier to multiplex and they don't catch on fire. all you need is clean-ish seawater. i even drew up a few designs myself a few months ago. what we lack is the will to put the plans we know will work into action.
  - marmadukester39 8y ago
    I’ve wondered whether this could be tried in a contained/containable area, like the Black Sea, to minimize potential unintended consequences.
    - cryoshon 8y ago
      i speculate that the black sea is not suitable because it's a bit too far north for optimal sunlight intensity and hours. in principle your idea is good, but it still suffers from the collective action problem.
  - DoctorOetker 8y ago
    I want to learn more about these cyanobacteria: Are there extensively measured curves of carbon uptake rate as a function of light intensity? For each curve draw the steepest line through the origin, touching the curve, the corresponding intensity is the ideal intensity, and the cyanbacteria type with the best carbon uptake rate per intensity should be selected. Then a single solar panel roof could power multiple "floors" of these cyanobacteria?
hacknat 8y ago
I think it's worth fighting hard still, because while we've definitely f&%$ed over the next few generations there is a strong possibility that we could keep the world habitable at least, but if we give up now then there is the distinct possibility we could hit 4C increase and dwindle the human population down to extremely dangerous levels (or even cause or own extinction).
alephnil 8y ago
There is no way to avoid all effects of climate change, but there is a significant difference between a two degree increase in global temperature and a six degree increase, which will be truly catastrophic. Thus everything that is done to reduce emission will make the effects less severe.
Brakenshire 8y ago
> Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 levels. We do not want to reverse climate change, we want to slow it as much as possible. And there is never a point at which you can meaningfully give up, 5C is better than 6C, 3C is better than 4C. What you’ve posted is just another rationalization for inaction.
- vowelless 8y ago
  > What you’ve posted is just another rationalization for inaction. How so? Seems like they are advocating for even more action than usually discussed because the problem is even more severe than we think.
  - coryfklein 8y ago
    "The war is unwinnable" is typically a defeatist wording, not a call to action.
lumberjack 8y ago
Climate change is one of those crux problems that necessitate the formation of a new political ideologies. Liberalism is inept to deal with it. Individual action is not enough. The current politicians will not do anything. But liberalism is not going to last forever nor is the current political climate, eternal.
beamatronic 8y ago
Would it help make this more concrete for people if we were to install markers along the coastlines of various cities that say “The ocean will be touching this sign on $date”
- carry_bit 8y ago
  What do you do for the people whose location wouldn't be underwater even if all of the ice melted?
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    "You will be dealing with refugees from underwater areas of $nearby_area on $date." This is the under-appreciated risk of climate change: all those people who get displaced are going to want somewhere to move to, and they're not going to want to pay for it (they will argue it's not their fault the ocean took their land). Meanwhile, all the people who already live in desirable places are not going to want to subsidize vast floods of strangers moving into their neighborhoods.
  - imtringued 8y ago
    Put a sign that tells you how many refugees will have to move into your area.
yawz 8y ago
I agree with these points. On the other hand, defeatist attitude is not going to help anyone. Reversing the climate change may be the moonshot, but unless we have an objective we cannot convince anyone outside the "greeny-lefty" minority. At a minimum, we should be good examples to our children who are in greater danger of suffering from this than we currently are. I, for one, am teaching my child respect for nature and its resources. If we all did this, world would be a better place nonetheless.
FigmentEngine 8y ago
someone is https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-We-Can-Save-Planet-ebook/dp/B002RI91R6/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533573884&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=mayer+hillman https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-We-Can-Save-Planet-ebook/dp/B00...
ithkuil 8y ago
honest but silly question: since the only way to deal with the problem is to also implement carbon capture to deal with the existing excess, would the same carbon capture mechanism be also able to cope with the rest of the world continuing to emit carbon at present rates?
- xyzzyz 8y ago
  Possibly, but more likely it would be more cost effective to actually subsidize the energy of the rest of the world so that they don’t emit carbon in the first place.
- rb808 8y ago
  Yeah I've thought about this - the best carbon capture system would take CO2 and turn it into pure carbon - or something like coal. So it does seem simpler not to burn coal in the first place. Alternatively if we can grow forests then bury them that could work too. I don't think we can ever have such an efficient carbon capture system in the forseeable future, but we should really be researching this much more than we are.
  - ithkuil 8y ago
    > So it does seem simpler not to burn coal in the first place. yes, provided you can control what the whole world does
atlantic 8y ago
The war is perfectly winnable, but not within the context of a democracy. Here you would need the equivalent of a state of emergency, lasting for perhaps a century, to force the necessary changes upon an unwilling public, who are quite happy to sort trash into three piles, stop using straws, or engage in other such cargo-cult behaviours, but not to give up their iPhones, 2nd cars or annual vacations. Ironically, a country such as China is much better equipped than the US or Europe to handle this kind of emergency. Once the leading figures become convinced of what needs to be done, they can implement the necessary measures in full and overnight, and ensure the necessary public support via the state-controlled educational system and media. In the West, we are reduced to endless haggling, as lobbies strive to convert the emergency into additional demand for new "green" product lines or for bogus geoengineering solutions, and political representatives end up implementing toothless half-measures that achieve nothing.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  A large majority of Americans support adding a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which demonstrates a willingness to reduce consumption as long as it is part of a concerted action and not just an insignificant choice by a single person that will make no noticeable difference to climate change. We need "leaders" to catch up with the general public's views on this matter, not the other way around.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Or a large number of Americans think they personally could afford to pay a carbon tax and are happy to place the burden on poor people who cannot.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      The money has to come from somewhere. If I have to pay a tax on carbon, I have to spend less money on something else. Regardless of whether or not I can afford a carbon tax, it still has to result in lower consumption.
mnm1 8y ago
Why would you expect the common person to change their habits when government abs industry aren't changing theirs? It won't make a difference what I do personally. I could fly on a jet nonstop for the rest of my life and it will make little difference. Government could pass a law to reduce carbon output tomorrow and it would make a difference. Why should us regular people be uncomfortable when we're fucked anyway because of idiot climate change deniers in power, especially in the US? If we're all going to be fucked anyway, I'm going to enjoy my AC and vacations while it lasts. Maybe leaders should start fucking leading first and people should stop pretending like individuals can even make a worthwhile dent in carbon output without government and industry changing their ways.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  Well, it certainly would signal something the day these government leaders stop flying private jet planes to climate conferences or even start having video conferences. That should help. History has a number of examples of how far people will go if their leaders go first. But as long as leaders say one thing and do something completely different? I say no wonder uneducated people don't buy it. Note: this is not to be taken as defense for the current behaviour but as a suggestion for how to improve the situation.
  - mnm1 8y ago
    The leaders aren't even going to these conferences. They deny climate change is even happening. With leadership like that, I certainly won't be making any sacrifices.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      True for for Trump and a few others, but there are plenty others who go.
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
We can't even do that. We have done it in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/uk-carbon-emissions-drop-to-lowest-level-since-19th-century-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/uk-carbo...
torpfactory 8y ago
I think we need a few things to win the war: 1) A few more technological solutions to make the switch to carbon free energy painless (think grid scale batteries, hopefully fusion power someday). In reality people won't want to give up some of the great benefits of a carbon-intensive lifestyle such as travel and convenience. 2) A political movement to make the case that the switch will be not-so-bad. 3) A social movement to focus on what people actually need in life (health, friends, family), not material wealth. And to consider their place in the world on century time scales. Thanks all ;).

by rb808 8y ago

vowelless 8y ago

That is indeed what it seems like. We need a 10x improvement in this space. That can only happen with carbon capture and ability to regulate CO2 in the atmosphere. Not "planting trees", for God's sake. The whole conversation around emissions and the massive politicization of this is disappointing. Emissions reduction doesn't seem to do much. We need a Manhattan project to produce carbon and weather manipulation technology.

cryoshon 8y ago
we have the technology already: the cyanobacteria which produced the oxygen that ultimately became the earth's atmosphere. they're even better than trees because they're easier to multiplex and they don't catch on fire. all you need is clean-ish seawater. i even drew up a few designs myself a few months ago. what we lack is the will to put the plans we know will work into action.
- marmadukester39 8y ago
  I’ve wondered whether this could be tried in a contained/containable area, like the Black Sea, to minimize potential unintended consequences.
  - cryoshon 8y ago
    i speculate that the black sea is not suitable because it's a bit too far north for optimal sunlight intensity and hours. in principle your idea is good, but it still suffers from the collective action problem.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  I want to learn more about these cyanobacteria: Are there extensively measured curves of carbon uptake rate as a function of light intensity? For each curve draw the steepest line through the origin, touching the curve, the corresponding intensity is the ideal intensity, and the cyanbacteria type with the best carbon uptake rate per intensity should be selected. Then a single solar panel roof could power multiple "floors" of these cyanobacteria?

hacknat 8y ago

I think it's worth fighting hard still, because while we've definitely f&%$ed over the next few generations there is a strong possibility that we could keep the world habitable at least, but if we give up now then there is the distinct possibility we could hit 4C increase and dwindle the human population down to extremely dangerous levels (or even cause or own extinction).

alephnil 8y ago

There is no way to avoid all effects of climate change, but there is a significant difference between a two degree increase in global temperature and a six degree increase, which will be truly catastrophic. Thus everything that is done to reduce emission will make the effects less severe.

Brakenshire 8y ago

> Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 levels. We do not want to reverse climate change, we want to slow it as much as possible. And there is never a point at which you can meaningfully give up, 5C is better than 6C, 3C is better than 4C. What you’ve posted is just another rationalization for inaction.

vowelless 8y ago
> What you’ve posted is just another rationalization for inaction. How so? Seems like they are advocating for even more action than usually discussed because the problem is even more severe than we think.
- coryfklein 8y ago
  "The war is unwinnable" is typically a defeatist wording, not a call to action.

lumberjack 8y ago

Climate change is one of those crux problems that necessitate the formation of a new political ideologies. Liberalism is inept to deal with it. Individual action is not enough. The current politicians will not do anything. But liberalism is not going to last forever nor is the current political climate, eternal.

beamatronic 8y ago

Would it help make this more concrete for people if we were to install markers along the coastlines of various cities that say “The ocean will be touching this sign on $date”

carry_bit 8y ago
What do you do for the people whose location wouldn't be underwater even if all of the ice melted?
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  "You will be dealing with refugees from underwater areas of $nearby_area on $date." This is the under-appreciated risk of climate change: all those people who get displaced are going to want somewhere to move to, and they're not going to want to pay for it (they will argue it's not their fault the ocean took their land). Meanwhile, all the people who already live in desirable places are not going to want to subsidize vast floods of strangers moving into their neighborhoods.
- imtringued 8y ago
  Put a sign that tells you how many refugees will have to move into your area.

yawz 8y ago

I agree with these points. On the other hand, defeatist attitude is not going to help anyone. Reversing the climate change may be the moonshot, but unless we have an objective we cannot convince anyone outside the "greeny-lefty" minority. At a minimum, we should be good examples to our children who are in greater danger of suffering from this than we currently are. I, for one, am teaching my child respect for nature and its resources. If we all did this, world would be a better place nonetheless.

FigmentEngine 8y ago

someone is https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-We-Can-Save-Planet-ebook/dp/B002RI91R6/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533573884&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=mayer+hillman https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-We-Can-Save-Planet-ebook/dp/B00...

ithkuil 8y ago

honest but silly question: since the only way to deal with the problem is to also implement carbon capture to deal with the existing excess, would the same carbon capture mechanism be also able to cope with the rest of the world continuing to emit carbon at present rates?

xyzzyz 8y ago
Possibly, but more likely it would be more cost effective to actually subsidize the energy of the rest of the world so that they don’t emit carbon in the first place.
rb808 8y ago
Yeah I've thought about this - the best carbon capture system would take CO2 and turn it into pure carbon - or something like coal. So it does seem simpler not to burn coal in the first place. Alternatively if we can grow forests then bury them that could work too. I don't think we can ever have such an efficient carbon capture system in the forseeable future, but we should really be researching this much more than we are.
- ithkuil 8y ago
  > So it does seem simpler not to burn coal in the first place. yes, provided you can control what the whole world does

atlantic 8y ago

The war is perfectly winnable, but not within the context of a democracy. Here you would need the equivalent of a state of emergency, lasting for perhaps a century, to force the necessary changes upon an unwilling public, who are quite happy to sort trash into three piles, stop using straws, or engage in other such cargo-cult behaviours, but not to give up their iPhones, 2nd cars or annual vacations. Ironically, a country such as China is much better equipped than the US or Europe to handle this kind of emergency. Once the leading figures become convinced of what needs to be done, they can implement the necessary measures in full and overnight, and ensure the necessary public support via the state-controlled educational system and media. In the West, we are reduced to endless haggling, as lobbies strive to convert the emergency into additional demand for new "green" product lines or for bogus geoengineering solutions, and political representatives end up implementing toothless half-measures that achieve nothing.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago
A large majority of Americans support adding a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which demonstrates a willingness to reduce consumption as long as it is part of a concerted action and not just an insignificant choice by a single person that will make no noticeable difference to climate change. We need "leaders" to catch up with the general public's views on this matter, not the other way around.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Or a large number of Americans think they personally could afford to pay a carbon tax and are happy to place the burden on poor people who cannot.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    The money has to come from somewhere. If I have to pay a tax on carbon, I have to spend less money on something else. Regardless of whether or not I can afford a carbon tax, it still has to result in lower consumption.

mnm1 8y ago

Why would you expect the common person to change their habits when government abs industry aren't changing theirs? It won't make a difference what I do personally. I could fly on a jet nonstop for the rest of my life and it will make little difference. Government could pass a law to reduce carbon output tomorrow and it would make a difference. Why should us regular people be uncomfortable when we're fucked anyway because of idiot climate change deniers in power, especially in the US? If we're all going to be fucked anyway, I'm going to enjoy my AC and vacations while it lasts. Maybe leaders should start fucking leading first and people should stop pretending like individuals can even make a worthwhile dent in carbon output without government and industry changing their ways.

reitanqild 8y ago
Well, it certainly would signal something the day these government leaders stop flying private jet planes to climate conferences or even start having video conferences. That should help. History has a number of examples of how far people will go if their leaders go first. But as long as leaders say one thing and do something completely different? I say no wonder uneducated people don't buy it. Note: this is not to be taken as defense for the current behaviour but as a suggestion for how to improve the situation.
- mnm1 8y ago
  The leaders aren't even going to these conferences. They deny climate change is even happening. With leadership like that, I certainly won't be making any sacrifices.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    True for for Trump and a few others, but there are plenty others who go.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

We can't even do that. We have done it in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/uk-carbon-emissions-drop-to-lowest-level-since-19th-century-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/uk-carbo...

torpfactory 8y ago

I think we need a few things to win the war: 1) A few more technological solutions to make the switch to carbon free energy painless (think grid scale batteries, hopefully fusion power someday). In reality people won't want to give up some of the great benefits of a carbon-intensive lifestyle such as travel and convenience. 2) A political movement to make the case that the switch will be not-so-bad. 3) A social movement to focus on what people actually need in life (health, friends, family), not material wealth. And to consider their place in the world on century time scales. Thanks all ;).