6 ms·

What are the hypothetical options to stop/slow/reverse global warming? Assuming we could overcome any setback, what would we as a species have to accomplish and

by soared 8y ago

What are the hypothetical options to stop/slow/reverse global warming? Assuming we could overcome any setback, what would we as a species have to accomplish and when?

kikoreis 8y ago
I'm curious about something closely related, which is: what are the practical things that need to be done to put brakes on the process? It feels like we've failed to articulate a concrete plan that we put to governments.
- CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
  There was an interesting panel discussion at Davos about what is being done, and what should be done. https://youtu.be/IPo3IL2m2Tc https://youtu.be/IPo3IL2m2Tc
- sliken 8y ago
  Buy solar (or even better buy into a share of large solar installation), don't fly, and don't eat meat seem to be the top things that individuals can do.
ximeng 8y ago
The IPCC reports are authoritative. Basically there are a number of pathways to reduce emissions sufficiently quickly (and then to suck out pollutants from the air) to limit climate change: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-i... "The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air." It's going to be tough. Some discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18181503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18181503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18814813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18814813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18389324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18389324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221239
- vkou 8y ago
  > This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air. This is the most important sentence in that paragraph. If we're going to sit on our hands, waiting until 2030 to halve our emissions, and 2050 to zero them (Nobody has a plan for doing either of those things, by the way), we're then going to have to perform planet-scale carbon sequestration. No affordable planet-scale carbon sequestration technology currently exists, nor are we close to developing one.
  - Iwan-Zotow 8y ago
    > No affordable planet-scale carbon sequestration technology currently exists Huh?!? What about just growing trees?
    - sliken 8y ago
      Trees are carbon neutral, not carbon sinks. You grow it, and it's a carbon sink. But then it dies. If by fire it's releases the CO2 quickly, if not it rots slowly and reduces the CO2 slowly. Neither are a fix for our short term problems. Growing algae or plankton on the ocean, where most of them die and land on the (mostly inert) deep ocean floor would help. Not perfect, but at least the CO2 is likely be consumed on the ocean floor slower than it's produced on the surface thanks to the cold, dark, high pressure environment on the ocean floor. One research claims that the limit for growth in many places in the ocean is a lack of iron. So spreading iron would lead to a huge increase in life. Unfortunately the impact seems to last days.
      - CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
        The IPCC report estimates a possibility of 2GT/year from afforestation. (And expect us to need 100-1000GT extracted by 2100 depending on how quickly we get rid of emissions.)
        sliken 8y ago
vkou 8y ago
There are a number of strategies, each of which has pros and cons. 1. Hard switch away from fossil fuels for base energy generation. The only option for this is nuclear. Pros: This could reduce our emissions by ~60%. Cons: Everyone hates nuclear. 2. Transition to a steady state economy. Drastically reduce our net consumption of energy and raw resources, by taxing energy, resource extraction, or waste, while keeping the same mix of energy generation. Pros: You can reduce emissions by... As much as you want, with this. Cons: Everyone is banking on unlimited exponential growth, and this would cause an economic collapse/depression. 3. Invest hundreds of millions of people, and trillions of dollars into carbon sequestration. Pros: If we do enough of this, we can drive emissions negative. Cons: You can't do this cheaply. So, you get all the cons of #2. Also, you have to stop using fossil fuels, because there's no point to digging up and burning coal, at the same time that you're growing, and burying trees. 4. Do next to nothing, and let our children deal with the fallout. Pros: It's easy, and we're already doing it. Cons: Your grandchildren will inherit an ecological disaster. There's no winning move.
- Iwan-Zotow 8y ago
  > There's no winning move. sure there is - #1 is clearly a winner. "Everyone hates nuclear" is zero cost change
  - vkou 8y ago
    Sure, you just have to get in bed with both the fossil fuel lobby, environmentalists, and the cost-sensitive lower-classes. All at once. Convince the three groups that their business is done, that they should do a 180 on the last four decades of their identity, and that they should pay twice as much for electricity, and you'll get them on board.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      Only one of the three groups you mentioned needs to do an ideological 180. The masses don't care and the energy companies don't care so long as they stand to make money. Only (some) environmentalists activity dislike nuclear.
Bombthecat 8y ago
My opinion : we won't be able to change anything until it is too late.
geogra4 8y ago
shutdown all coal plants and replace with Nuclear

by soared 8y ago

What are the hypothetical options to stop/slow/reverse global warming? Assuming we could overcome any setback, what would we as a species have to accomplish and when?

kikoreis 8y ago

I'm curious about something closely related, which is: what are the practical things that need to be done to put brakes on the process? It feels like we've failed to articulate a concrete plan that we put to governments.

CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
There was an interesting panel discussion at Davos about what is being done, and what should be done. https://youtu.be/IPo3IL2m2Tc https://youtu.be/IPo3IL2m2Tc
sliken 8y ago
Buy solar (or even better buy into a share of large solar installation), don't fly, and don't eat meat seem to be the top things that individuals can do.

ximeng 8y ago

The IPCC reports are authoritative. Basically there are a number of pathways to reduce emissions sufficiently quickly (and then to suck out pollutants from the air) to limit climate change: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-i... "The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air." It's going to be tough. Some discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18181503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18181503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18814813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18814813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18389324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18389324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221239

vkou 8y ago
> This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air. This is the most important sentence in that paragraph. If we're going to sit on our hands, waiting until 2030 to halve our emissions, and 2050 to zero them (Nobody has a plan for doing either of those things, by the way), we're then going to have to perform planet-scale carbon sequestration. No affordable planet-scale carbon sequestration technology currently exists, nor are we close to developing one.
- Iwan-Zotow 8y ago
  > No affordable planet-scale carbon sequestration technology currently exists Huh?!? What about just growing trees?
  - sliken 8y ago
    Trees are carbon neutral, not carbon sinks. You grow it, and it's a carbon sink. But then it dies. If by fire it's releases the CO2 quickly, if not it rots slowly and reduces the CO2 slowly. Neither are a fix for our short term problems. Growing algae or plankton on the ocean, where most of them die and land on the (mostly inert) deep ocean floor would help. Not perfect, but at least the CO2 is likely be consumed on the ocean floor slower than it's produced on the surface thanks to the cold, dark, high pressure environment on the ocean floor. One research claims that the limit for growth in many places in the ocean is a lack of iron. So spreading iron would lead to a huge increase in life. Unfortunately the impact seems to last days.
    - CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
      The IPCC report estimates a possibility of 2GT/year from afforestation. (And expect us to need 100-1000GT extracted by 2100 depending on how quickly we get rid of emissions.)
      - sliken 8y ago

vkou 8y ago

There are a number of strategies, each of which has pros and cons. 1. Hard switch away from fossil fuels for base energy generation. The only option for this is nuclear. Pros: This could reduce our emissions by ~60%. Cons: Everyone hates nuclear. 2. Transition to a steady state economy. Drastically reduce our net consumption of energy and raw resources, by taxing energy, resource extraction, or waste, while keeping the same mix of energy generation. Pros: You can reduce emissions by... As much as you want, with this. Cons: Everyone is banking on unlimited exponential growth, and this would cause an economic collapse/depression. 3. Invest hundreds of millions of people, and trillions of dollars into carbon sequestration. Pros: If we do enough of this, we can drive emissions negative. Cons: You can't do this cheaply. So, you get all the cons of #2. Also, you have to stop using fossil fuels, because there's no point to digging up and burning coal, at the same time that you're growing, and burying trees. 4. Do next to nothing, and let our children deal with the fallout. Pros: It's easy, and we're already doing it. Cons: Your grandchildren will inherit an ecological disaster. There's no winning move.

Iwan-Zotow 8y ago
> There's no winning move. sure there is - #1 is clearly a winner. "Everyone hates nuclear" is zero cost change
- vkou 8y ago
  Sure, you just have to get in bed with both the fossil fuel lobby, environmentalists, and the cost-sensitive lower-classes. All at once. Convince the three groups that their business is done, that they should do a 180 on the last four decades of their identity, and that they should pay twice as much for electricity, and you'll get them on board.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Only one of the three groups you mentioned needs to do an ideological 180. The masses don't care and the energy companies don't care so long as they stand to make money. Only (some) environmentalists activity dislike nuclear.

Bombthecat 8y ago

My opinion : we won't be able to change anything until it is too late.

geogra4 8y ago

shutdown all coal plants and replace with Nuclear