11 ms·

Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II

158 points by infodocket 8y ago

ForHackernews 8y ago
> To stabilize climate at any particular temperature level, however, it is not enough to halt the growth in annual carbon emissions. Global net carbon emissions will eventually need to reach zero and negative emissions may be needed for a greater-than-50% chance of limiting warming below 3.6°F (2°C) (see also Ch. 14: Mitigation for a discussion of negative emissions).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ForHackernews 8y ago
Wow, Table 14.1 is terrifying: > Considering both historical and projected non-CO2 effects reduces the estimated cumulative CO2 budget compatible with any future warming goal, and in the case of 3.6°F (2°C) it reduces the aforementioned estimate to 790 GtC. Given this more comprehensive estimate, limiting the global average temperature increase to below 3.6°F (2°C) means approximately 230 GtC more CO2 could be emitted globally. To illustrate, if one assumes future global emissions follow a pathway consistent with the lower scenario (RCP4.5), this cumulative carbon threshold is exceeded by around 2037, while under the higher scenario (RCP8.5) this occurs by around 2033. To limit the global average temperature increase to 2.7°F (1.5°C), the estimated cumulative CO2 budget is about 590 GtC (assuming linear scaling with the compatible 3.6°F (2°C) budget that also considers non-CO2 effects), meaning only about 30 GtC more of CO2 could be emitted. Further emissions of 30 GtC (in the form of CO2) are projected to occur in the next few years (Table 14.1). Dates by when cumulative carbon emissions (GtC) since 1870 reach amount commensurate with 2.7°F (1.5°C), when accounting for non-CO2 forcings: 66% = 593 GtC 50% = 615 GtC 33% = 675 GtC --------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- RCP4.5 2019 2021 2027 RCP8.5 2019 2021 2025 By next year, we'll (most likely) have burned through our chance of holding climate change to 1.5°C
- jaggederest 8y ago
  Yep. We will need significant investment in not just emissions reduction but active negative emissions, on the order of significant percentages of global GDP, for a long time. Think "all of the direct economic benefit of fossil fuels from all of human history but in reverse, plus inefficiency losses, in 1/4 the timespan"
- graeme 8y ago
  It's rather sobering. It's also my impression that most people who "believe" in climate change haven't near come to grips with the scale and urgency of the problem. I've been thinking of writing an essay along the lines of the world being "default dead". Basically, unless we come up with something to suck carbon from the air and replace our energy use, I believe we're sunk. A lot of people seem to believe that if we just stopped or "reduced" we'd solve the problem. But if we continue for just a few years as normal, then even a total cessation of emissions wouldn't solve our predicament. Reducing, eliminating: these are important things. But, we're basically dead by default, and need to do something more to actually reverse what we emitted.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    I was talking to my dad last night and he was saying how important it is to maximize your 401k, etc. and all I could think was "but even I have money it won't effing mean anything when billions of people are starving and you need to defend any means to produce food with force". But hey, you know, reusable grocery bags and telecommuting 1 day a week should do it. I guess. It's like we found the asteroid headed for Earth and decided to pretend it doesn't exist.
    - ramblerouser 8y ago
      Or some rich and powerful people decided to tell you a metior was about to pummel the Earth and you better accept a reduced standard of living while they fly to and from climate conferences in their private jets. If your political beliefs tell you to not save for your retirement because the apocalypse is coming, that should be a serious red flag.
tzs 8y ago
Don't expect much action on this at the Federal level. Here's the President's recent climate assessment: "Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?" [1] [1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1065400254151954432 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10654002541519544... Edit: this seems to be a controversial comment. It is getting a lot of down votes and a lot of up votes. I'm a bit confused by this. The report is a US government report, largely prepared by agencies that are under the Executive branch, and says that climate change is a big and growing problem. It is the Executive branch that will handle any Federal action in response to this. The President is the head of the Executive, and will largely determine how the Federal government responds, either directly by executive orders and by setting White House policy, or indirectly through the President's choices of heads of the agencies. That the President a mere two days before the report was released (and almost certainly having been told well in advance what was going to be in report) is implying that climate change is not happening is on-topic and relevant.
- ForrestN 8y ago
  I will explain my upvote: the single greatest enemy of solving Climate change, literally anywhere in the world, is the Republican Party. If you imagine a world in which the Republican Party does not have the ability to affect U.S. policy, you can imagine a world in which a) we are already deep into U.S. efforts to lead the way on preventing large rises and b) where the terms of the debate about where to go from here are very different. Right now, Republicans control the government, so you are correct that we should not expect much change at the federal level before 2020 unless something radical and highly unlikely happens. I don't know why you're being downvoted, but I think it's important to say this clearly: anyone who believes that global warming is real, that science is a rational basis for knowledge, and wants humanity to address warming as soon as possible, is in profound, fundamental conflict with the Republican Party about the most important crisis of our time. The significance of this report is to convey the gravity of the crisis and to raise a sense of emergency among the public. If the report succeeds, it will be generating the political will necessary to strip Republicans of power and force through a science-based policy.
  - 8y ago
titojankowski 8y ago
Interested in mining carbon from the air? Check out the AirMiners index of 83+ startups at http://airminers.org http://airminers.org Please add new companies you find, too!
- jcoffland 8y ago
  Wait until humans figure out that air itself is a precious and limited commodity. When the air grab starts many will die.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Not to worry, I hear the Druidians have plenty.
- graeme 8y ago
  I don't know why this was downvoted. Along with eliminating emissions, we'll more or less have to find a way to suck out carbon it we're to return to the world we knew.
macinjosh 8y ago
I would love for all globalist climate change doomsayers to put their money where their mouths are and stop flying across the globe in jets, driving in cars, and eating vegetables and meat from commercial agriculture, but I am not holding my breath. Let's face it: The science behind climate change is likely sound, climate change is real, and we should probably do things to address it. What is not science is accurately predicting the future. That cannot be done. Relying on computer models that can't possibly take into consideration every variable that can affect the climate, to me, is a waste of time, resources, and human lives. It is definitely not something we should base our governmental and societal decisions on.
- avip 8y ago
  We don't need to "accurately predict the future" at this point. First, climate change is the present. Second - does it matter if we're in "best-case" of only so many millions dying, or the worst-case (end of civilization)?
- mikeash 8y ago
  What should we base our governmental and societal decisions on?
  - Oletros 8y ago
    Doing nothing. His use of "globalists" says all
foobar2020 8y ago
Chapter 2 has a plot of our understanding of the impact of all natural and human causes on the change in temperature: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png It's pretty clear (according to the models) that the human created aerosols combat a fair chunk of the increase caused by carbon emissions (around 0.7 deg C at the moment, which is substantial; we'd have already been around 2 deg C without it). Is deliberately increasing the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere a viable path forward? Is this economically feasible and safe? Can this be used to bring us back to the pre-industrial temperature levels?
- usaar333 8y ago
  There's lots of studies suggesting you can do this at low cost. There are issues, from not solving some problems at all (ocean acidification) to creating others (localized rainfall reduction). My own thoughts are that we should be exploring doing this as a secondary backstop (it has pretty high ROI), while aggressively cutting emissions as well. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-geoengineering-may-not-cool-the-oceans-study-says https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-geoengineering-may-not-coo...
  - twblalock 8y ago
    It seems like we have to do some geoengineering no matter what, because the emission cuts required to solve the problem are unattainable even if every government on the planet was trying to do its part. The current climate change problem has been caused by unintentional geoengineering with an undesirable outcome. It's reasonable to assume that different methods of geoengineering can have different effects, and might be capable of helping solve the problem.
  - graeme 8y ago
    In my view, this could be dangerous if we do it before we are on the way to eliminating carbon via an alternative. If we get a symptom reduction via aerosols, we might just burn everything we can, and have some terrible effects on the oceans. We might have to do it anyway, but I'm hoping we can hold off till we have a replacement, so as to avoid compounding things even worse than they are. Human psychology being what it is, we'll use aerosols to push off solving things. Anyone know the expected outcome of a seriously acid ocean? My assumption is it would be civilization ending in some way, but maybe that's wrong.
bitesociety 8y ago
Terriying for us and future generations. Simplest actions we all can take: 1 stop eating meat (especially beef pork lamb) and dairy (especially cheese) 2 lower unecessary travel 3 get energy efficient appliances 4 buy less stuff 5 demand more action from govt and corporate world
anesmike 8y ago
The other elephant in the room will be the precipitous decline in fossil fuels in the coming decades , maybe sooner then we think and what this will do to our society in maintaining our present complexity and more importantly food production.
bulatb 8y ago
The very best thing you can do on climate change, right now, for free, is stop suggesting people "do their part" by flying less or eating less or making any other kind of individual sacrifice. Erase that proposition from your brain and never mention it again. Climate change is a collective action problem. It can't be solved by voluntary sacrifice or any other kind of uncoordinated action. Suggesting that it can is harmful in two ways: 1. It puts the focus on solutions that don't work and won't even help. 2. Framing it in terms of sacrifice—which, again, won't even work—makes people less inclined to help in ways that might work, like lobbying for more effective policy. "Eat your vegetables" is not the answer. People won't—no matter what. You might, your friends might, but people won't, and that's what matters. Deny this fact at everyone's peril.
- ianai 8y ago
  This thought process led me to consider buying a gas guzzler in the past. The sooner it hurts enough for everyone to “get it” the better. But I didn’t buy a gas guzzler. Instead, I bought a hybrid.
  - theptip 8y ago
    I think the point that the GP is making is that while you may indeed have bought a hybrid, objectively the population at large have not made that same switch, and if only you (and people like you) make the switch it has approximately no effect on the problem. Sure, it's obviously better if people choose the hybrid over the guzzler, but if you're trying to do something to avoid catastrophic climate change, I think spending time persuading people not to buy the guzzler is not worth the opportunity cost. (By which I mean, at the margin, any time spent persuading people not to buy a gas guzzler would be better spent persuading people to support a carbon tax of some sort).
    - ianai 8y ago
      And the outlook of political action on climate change is at best questionable.
tejohnso 8y ago
Keep in mind that projections are typically underestimated and don't take into account potential tipping points. I encourage everyone to read the chapter on Potential Surprises. [1] Meanwhile, arctic sea ice is disappearing [2] and I didn't see any mention of latent heat or phase change energy of the arctic waters. Once the ice is gone, we're done. [1] https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/ [2] https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/11/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/11/
sapote 8y ago
This is a topic that has a lot of noise but there are two relatively easy to explain things to tell people (I am discounting the usual 27% of the population who will never be interested): 1. There is a policy that is simple to explain and has some bipartisan appeal: Fee and Dividend (also known as the Clean Energy Dividend). It puts an increasing price on carbon per ton at the source (e.g., oil well, port of entry, etc.) and distributes 100% of the proceeds to the people. That's it. No tricks, no back-door subsidies. And because it is redistributed it's also not a tax in the usual sense, which helps win over those who are open to climate policy but anti-tax. 2. Things are indeed more dire than even most climate aware folks realize. Watch climate scientist Kevin Anderson break down the numbers -- it's sobering how disconnected our climate discourse is from reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX1r8OAmz9I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX1r8OAmz9I
carapace 8y ago
Here's one reason to be hopeful that there's a (relatively) easy fix for some of our problems. https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change-and-ocean-acidificaiton/ https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change... > In this case, we are looking specifically at the rock olivine when it comes in contact with ocean water and the CO2 dissolved in it. What results is a chemical reaction that pulls carbon from the CO2 in the ocean and binds it in a solution that eventually settles into rock on the sea floor. Not only does the olivine remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but the resulting solution is alkaline and has a deacidifying effect on the ocean.
- shawnb576 8y ago
  This is a hopeful direction but it sounds like the jury is out of this can really scale to anywhere the amount we need. But it’s cheap and it helps with the oceans so seems like it’s part of a solution matrix. Also seems lower risk than spraying stuff into the atmosphere so I hope we can get moving on it.
carapace 8y ago
David Blume [1] has been promoting for years the idea of small-scale alcohol fuel production integrated into a Permaculture farm. This is a simple, backyard technology that can be adopted incrementally. The fuel is carbon-neutral. If you don't have land, you can join or start a Community-Supported Agriculture co-op, for produce and fuel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blume

158 points by infodocket 8y ago

> To stabilize climate at any particular temperature level, however, it is not enough to halt the growth in annual carbon emissions. Global net carbon emissions will eventually need to reach zero and negative emissions may be needed for a greater-than-50% chance of limiting warming below 3.6°F (2°C) (see also Ch. 14: Mitigation for a discussion of negative emissions).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ForHackernews 8y ago

Wow, Table 14.1 is terrifying: > Considering both historical and projected non-CO2 effects reduces the estimated cumulative CO2 budget compatible with any future warming goal, and in the case of 3.6°F (2°C) it reduces the aforementioned estimate to 790 GtC. Given this more comprehensive estimate, limiting the global average temperature increase to below 3.6°F (2°C) means approximately 230 GtC more CO2 could be emitted globally. To illustrate, if one assumes future global emissions follow a pathway consistent with the lower scenario (RCP4.5), this cumulative carbon threshold is exceeded by around 2037, while under the higher scenario (RCP8.5) this occurs by around 2033. To limit the global average temperature increase to 2.7°F (1.5°C), the estimated cumulative CO2 budget is about 590 GtC (assuming linear scaling with the compatible 3.6°F (2°C) budget that also considers non-CO2 effects), meaning only about 30 GtC more of CO2 could be emitted. Further emissions of 30 GtC (in the form of CO2) are projected to occur in the next few years (Table 14.1). Dates by when cumulative carbon emissions (GtC) since 1870 reach amount commensurate with 2.7°F (1.5°C), when accounting for non-CO2 forcings: 66% = 593 GtC 50% = 615 GtC 33% = 675 GtC --------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- RCP4.5 2019 2021 2027 RCP8.5 2019 2021 2025 By next year, we'll (most likely) have burned through our chance of holding climate change to 1.5°C

jaggederest 8y ago
Yep. We will need significant investment in not just emissions reduction but active negative emissions, on the order of significant percentages of global GDP, for a long time. Think "all of the direct economic benefit of fossil fuels from all of human history but in reverse, plus inefficiency losses, in 1/4 the timespan"
graeme 8y ago
It's rather sobering. It's also my impression that most people who "believe" in climate change haven't near come to grips with the scale and urgency of the problem. I've been thinking of writing an essay along the lines of the world being "default dead". Basically, unless we come up with something to suck carbon from the air and replace our energy use, I believe we're sunk. A lot of people seem to believe that if we just stopped or "reduced" we'd solve the problem. But if we continue for just a few years as normal, then even a total cessation of emissions wouldn't solve our predicament. Reducing, eliminating: these are important things. But, we're basically dead by default, and need to do something more to actually reverse what we emitted.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- CalRobert 8y ago
  I was talking to my dad last night and he was saying how important it is to maximize your 401k, etc. and all I could think was "but even I have money it won't effing mean anything when billions of people are starving and you need to defend any means to produce food with force". But hey, you know, reusable grocery bags and telecommuting 1 day a week should do it. I guess. It's like we found the asteroid headed for Earth and decided to pretend it doesn't exist.
  - ramblerouser 8y ago
    Or some rich and powerful people decided to tell you a metior was about to pummel the Earth and you better accept a reduced standard of living while they fly to and from climate conferences in their private jets. If your political beliefs tell you to not save for your retirement because the apocalypse is coming, that should be a serious red flag.

tzs 8y ago

Don't expect much action on this at the Federal level. Here's the President's recent climate assessment: "Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?" [1] [1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1065400254151954432 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10654002541519544... Edit: this seems to be a controversial comment. It is getting a lot of down votes and a lot of up votes. I'm a bit confused by this. The report is a US government report, largely prepared by agencies that are under the Executive branch, and says that climate change is a big and growing problem. It is the Executive branch that will handle any Federal action in response to this. The President is the head of the Executive, and will largely determine how the Federal government responds, either directly by executive orders and by setting White House policy, or indirectly through the President's choices of heads of the agencies. That the President a mere two days before the report was released (and almost certainly having been told well in advance what was going to be in report) is implying that climate change is not happening is on-topic and relevant.

ForrestN 8y ago
I will explain my upvote: the single greatest enemy of solving Climate change, literally anywhere in the world, is the Republican Party. If you imagine a world in which the Republican Party does not have the ability to affect U.S. policy, you can imagine a world in which a) we are already deep into U.S. efforts to lead the way on preventing large rises and b) where the terms of the debate about where to go from here are very different. Right now, Republicans control the government, so you are correct that we should not expect much change at the federal level before 2020 unless something radical and highly unlikely happens. I don't know why you're being downvoted, but I think it's important to say this clearly: anyone who believes that global warming is real, that science is a rational basis for knowledge, and wants humanity to address warming as soon as possible, is in profound, fundamental conflict with the Republican Party about the most important crisis of our time. The significance of this report is to convey the gravity of the crisis and to raise a sense of emergency among the public. If the report succeeds, it will be generating the political will necessary to strip Republicans of power and force through a science-based policy.
- 8y ago

titojankowski 8y ago

Interested in mining carbon from the air? Check out the AirMiners index of 83+ startups at http://airminers.org http://airminers.org Please add new companies you find, too!

jcoffland 8y ago
Wait until humans figure out that air itself is a precious and limited commodity. When the air grab starts many will die.
- krapp 8y ago
  Not to worry, I hear the Druidians have plenty.
graeme 8y ago
I don't know why this was downvoted. Along with eliminating emissions, we'll more or less have to find a way to suck out carbon it we're to return to the world we knew.

macinjosh 8y ago

I would love for all globalist climate change doomsayers to put their money where their mouths are and stop flying across the globe in jets, driving in cars, and eating vegetables and meat from commercial agriculture, but I am not holding my breath. Let's face it: The science behind climate change is likely sound, climate change is real, and we should probably do things to address it. What is not science is accurately predicting the future. That cannot be done. Relying on computer models that can't possibly take into consideration every variable that can affect the climate, to me, is a waste of time, resources, and human lives. It is definitely not something we should base our governmental and societal decisions on.

avip 8y ago
We don't need to "accurately predict the future" at this point. First, climate change is the present. Second - does it matter if we're in "best-case" of only so many millions dying, or the worst-case (end of civilization)?
mikeash 8y ago
What should we base our governmental and societal decisions on?
- Oletros 8y ago
  Doing nothing. His use of "globalists" says all

foobar2020 8y ago

Chapter 2 has a plot of our understanding of the impact of all natural and human causes on the change in temperature: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png It's pretty clear (according to the models) that the human created aerosols combat a fair chunk of the increase caused by carbon emissions (around 0.7 deg C at the moment, which is substantial; we'd have already been around 2 deg C without it). Is deliberately increasing the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere a viable path forward? Is this economically feasible and safe? Can this be used to bring us back to the pre-industrial temperature levels?

usaar333 8y ago
There's lots of studies suggesting you can do this at low cost. There are issues, from not solving some problems at all (ocean acidification) to creating others (localized rainfall reduction). My own thoughts are that we should be exploring doing this as a secondary backstop (it has pretty high ROI), while aggressively cutting emissions as well. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-geoengineering-may-not-cool-the-oceans-study-says https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-geoengineering-may-not-coo...
- twblalock 8y ago
  It seems like we have to do some geoengineering no matter what, because the emission cuts required to solve the problem are unattainable even if every government on the planet was trying to do its part. The current climate change problem has been caused by unintentional geoengineering with an undesirable outcome. It's reasonable to assume that different methods of geoengineering can have different effects, and might be capable of helping solve the problem.
- graeme 8y ago
  In my view, this could be dangerous if we do it before we are on the way to eliminating carbon via an alternative. If we get a symptom reduction via aerosols, we might just burn everything we can, and have some terrible effects on the oceans. We might have to do it anyway, but I'm hoping we can hold off till we have a replacement, so as to avoid compounding things even worse than they are. Human psychology being what it is, we'll use aerosols to push off solving things. Anyone know the expected outcome of a seriously acid ocean? My assumption is it would be civilization ending in some way, but maybe that's wrong.

bitesociety 8y ago

Terriying for us and future generations. Simplest actions we all can take: 1 stop eating meat (especially beef pork lamb) and dairy (especially cheese) 2 lower unecessary travel 3 get energy efficient appliances 4 buy less stuff 5 demand more action from govt and corporate world

anesmike 8y ago

The other elephant in the room will be the precipitous decline in fossil fuels in the coming decades , maybe sooner then we think and what this will do to our society in maintaining our present complexity and more importantly food production.

bulatb 8y ago

The very best thing you can do on climate change, right now, for free, is stop suggesting people "do their part" by flying less or eating less or making any other kind of individual sacrifice. Erase that proposition from your brain and never mention it again. Climate change is a collective action problem. It can't be solved by voluntary sacrifice or any other kind of uncoordinated action. Suggesting that it can is harmful in two ways: 1. It puts the focus on solutions that don't work and won't even help. 2. Framing it in terms of sacrifice—which, again, won't even work—makes people less inclined to help in ways that might work, like lobbying for more effective policy. "Eat your vegetables" is not the answer. People won't—no matter what. You might, your friends might, but people won't, and that's what matters. Deny this fact at everyone's peril.

ianai 8y ago
This thought process led me to consider buying a gas guzzler in the past. The sooner it hurts enough for everyone to “get it” the better. But I didn’t buy a gas guzzler. Instead, I bought a hybrid.
- theptip 8y ago
  I think the point that the GP is making is that while you may indeed have bought a hybrid, objectively the population at large have not made that same switch, and if only you (and people like you) make the switch it has approximately no effect on the problem. Sure, it's obviously better if people choose the hybrid over the guzzler, but if you're trying to do something to avoid catastrophic climate change, I think spending time persuading people not to buy the guzzler is not worth the opportunity cost. (By which I mean, at the margin, any time spent persuading people not to buy a gas guzzler would be better spent persuading people to support a carbon tax of some sort).
  - ianai 8y ago
    And the outlook of political action on climate change is at best questionable.

tejohnso 8y ago

Keep in mind that projections are typically underestimated and don't take into account potential tipping points. I encourage everyone to read the chapter on Potential Surprises. [1] Meanwhile, arctic sea ice is disappearing [2] and I didn't see any mention of latent heat or phase change energy of the arctic waters. Once the ice is gone, we're done. [1] https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/ [2] https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/11/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/11/

sapote 8y ago

This is a topic that has a lot of noise but there are two relatively easy to explain things to tell people (I am discounting the usual 27% of the population who will never be interested): 1. There is a policy that is simple to explain and has some bipartisan appeal: Fee and Dividend (also known as the Clean Energy Dividend). It puts an increasing price on carbon per ton at the source (e.g., oil well, port of entry, etc.) and distributes 100% of the proceeds to the people. That's it. No tricks, no back-door subsidies. And because it is redistributed it's also not a tax in the usual sense, which helps win over those who are open to climate policy but anti-tax. 2. Things are indeed more dire than even most climate aware folks realize. Watch climate scientist Kevin Anderson break down the numbers -- it's sobering how disconnected our climate discourse is from reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX1r8OAmz9I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX1r8OAmz9I

carapace 8y ago

Here's one reason to be hopeful that there's a (relatively) easy fix for some of our problems. https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change-and-ocean-acidificaiton/ https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change... > In this case, we are looking specifically at the rock olivine when it comes in contact with ocean water and the CO2 dissolved in it. What results is a chemical reaction that pulls carbon from the CO2 in the ocean and binds it in a solution that eventually settles into rock on the sea floor. Not only does the olivine remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but the resulting solution is alkaline and has a deacidifying effect on the ocean.

shawnb576 8y ago
This is a hopeful direction but it sounds like the jury is out of this can really scale to anywhere the amount we need. But it’s cheap and it helps with the oceans so seems like it’s part of a solution matrix. Also seems lower risk than spraying stuff into the atmosphere so I hope we can get moving on it.

carapace 8y ago

David Blume [1] has been promoting for years the idea of small-scale alcohol fuel production integrated into a Permaculture farm. This is a simple, backyard technology that can be adopted incrementally. The fuel is carbon-neutral. If you don't have land, you can join or start a Community-Supported Agriculture co-op, for produce and fuel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blume