4 ms·

If I could save the planet from climate change for a dollar, the nations of the world would be discussing how to divide that until it's too late. There is a fi

If I could save the planet from climate change for a dollar, the nations of the world would be discussing how to divide that until it's too late. There is a fixed sum of yearly Global GDP we'd need to spend to fix this. It may be unknown, but that doesn't make it less existent. Estimating it has been a whole area of work, but we haven't found a system to actually pay down that planetary tech-debt. Carbon Engineering can get a ton of carbon out of the atmosphere for roughly 100$. Driving down that price further while aggressively scaling the deployments of that technology would be one engineering solution. But the political, economical and possibly even legal parts of this stay unsolved. Who's working on this, how are they even paid?

tcmb 8y ago
Allow me to be skeptical of such a seemingly simple solution to a complex problem. Will we still be able to pay for this when the developing nations also adopt the first-world lifestyle? And how does it address landscapes wasted through nuclear accidents, fracking, and coal mining?
- Roritharr 8y ago
  I didn't say we would be able to pay, I said that there's a hidden price. It might be that the price is too high, like 180% Global GDP for a century, but it would be nice to find out right?
  - roryisok 8y ago
    I always find it laughable when people talk about how much it'll cost to take carbon out of the atmosphere. It's farcical to me that our imaginary numbers game stops us from trying to prevent the end of the world. If there was an asteroid heading for earth and we could stop it but the rocket was going to cost 100 trillion dollars, would it be built?
    - Roritharr 8y ago
      That's a good question, because the numbers game is only imaginary if your populations survival isn't dependant on it. If we start diverting enough effort to rocketry, food prices may rise and the poorest can afford even less kcal per day... But you are completely underlining my argument. I don't know if the rocket would get built.
      - roryisok 8y ago
        I don't know either. Such an important project should transcend money. Governments should provide the manpower to build the rocket, companies provide the parts for free, scientists work Pro bono to get it done and save the planet. Otherwise we all die. I would volunteer to work for free to build that rocket, if my skills would help. But even given such a tangible, measurable, timetablable thing as a rock coming to crush us, i have my doubts.
bromuro 8y ago
You can’t fix climate change with money.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  In a world that seeks to reduce everything to money and economics? I guess you're not optimistic of any solution then.
- tuesdayrain 8y ago
  If you can't fix climate change with a careful allocation of money then you can't fix it with anything.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  This statement is sufficiently vague to be (possibly) tautologically true and meaningless at the same time. GP agrees that there is a cost, however known or unknown. But also argues that even if it were trivial, countries and other actors wouldbe fighting over it. Your point is far less clear.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
If we'd started fixing it when the oil company internal reports of global warming were appearing in the 80s[0], or earlier in the global consensus, both the total spend, and yearly spend would have been far less. As of right now we seem set to power right past Paris agreements, so 1.5 or 2 degrees is just wishful thinking. Remembering the ozone crisis, and subsequent international agreements, that appeared to be the last occasion public policy and international politics actually worked anything like "as intended". That action came rather slowly, and there were attempts to evade the bans of CFCs doesn't change this. Which leaves us with almost nothing with which to solve this more pressing issue. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... and others.
abraae 8y ago
Global world product is, say, $75T per year. Global carbon emissions are, say, 10B tonnes per year. At $100 to extract a tonne of carbon, that's $1T per year to get to zero emissions. i.e. at a tax of just 1.3% of global GDP, we could extract ourselves from the shit. This seems cheap at the price. It would cost a lot more to fight any decent war. Yet like the proverbial frog in the boiling water, we'll most likely sit here as things heat up, not taking action because it all seems too hard or not yet an urgent problem.

tcmb 8y ago

Allow me to be skeptical of such a seemingly simple solution to a complex problem. Will we still be able to pay for this when the developing nations also adopt the first-world lifestyle? And how does it address landscapes wasted through nuclear accidents, fracking, and coal mining?

Roritharr 8y ago
I didn't say we would be able to pay, I said that there's a hidden price. It might be that the price is too high, like 180% Global GDP for a century, but it would be nice to find out right?
- roryisok 8y ago
  I always find it laughable when people talk about how much it'll cost to take carbon out of the atmosphere. It's farcical to me that our imaginary numbers game stops us from trying to prevent the end of the world. If there was an asteroid heading for earth and we could stop it but the rocket was going to cost 100 trillion dollars, would it be built?
  - Roritharr 8y ago
    That's a good question, because the numbers game is only imaginary if your populations survival isn't dependant on it. If we start diverting enough effort to rocketry, food prices may rise and the poorest can afford even less kcal per day... But you are completely underlining my argument. I don't know if the rocket would get built.
    - roryisok 8y ago
      I don't know either. Such an important project should transcend money. Governments should provide the manpower to build the rocket, companies provide the parts for free, scientists work Pro bono to get it done and save the planet. Otherwise we all die. I would volunteer to work for free to build that rocket, if my skills would help. But even given such a tangible, measurable, timetablable thing as a rock coming to crush us, i have my doubts.

bromuro 8y ago

You can’t fix climate change with money.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
In a world that seeks to reduce everything to money and economics? I guess you're not optimistic of any solution then.
tuesdayrain 8y ago
If you can't fix climate change with a careful allocation of money then you can't fix it with anything.
dredmorbius 8y ago
This statement is sufficiently vague to be (possibly) tautologically true and meaningless at the same time. GP agrees that there is a cost, however known or unknown. But also argues that even if it were trivial, countries and other actors wouldbe fighting over it. Your point is far less clear.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

If we'd started fixing it when the oil company internal reports of global warming were appearing in the 80s[0], or earlier in the global consensus, both the total spend, and yearly spend would have been far less. As of right now we seem set to power right past Paris agreements, so 1.5 or 2 degrees is just wishful thinking. Remembering the ozone crisis, and subsequent international agreements, that appeared to be the last occasion public policy and international politics actually worked anything like "as intended". That action came rather slowly, and there were attempts to evade the bans of CFCs doesn't change this. Which leaves us with almost nothing with which to solve this more pressing issue. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... and others.

abraae 8y ago

Global world product is, say, $75T per year. Global carbon emissions are, say, 10B tonnes per year. At $100 to extract a tonne of carbon, that's $1T per year to get to zero emissions. i.e. at a tax of just 1.3% of global GDP, we could extract ourselves from the shit. This seems cheap at the price. It would cost a lot more to fight any decent war. Yet like the proverbial frog in the boiling water, we'll most likely sit here as things heat up, not taking action because it all seems too hard or not yet an urgent problem.