5 ms·

> So, the first thing we need to do is to move to completely carbon emission free technology of energy production. Then we can perhaps produce more than we need

> So, the first thing we need to do is to move to completely carbon emission free technology of energy production. Then we can perhaps produce more than we need (e.g. in the peaks) and can start thinking about catching some CO2 back from the atmosphere to reverse the climate changes. We should be doing both in parallel. The article talks about this: "Last year’s I.P.C.C. report noted that it may be impossible to limit warming to 1.5 degrees by 2100 through only a rapid switch to clean energy, electric cars and the like. To preserve a livable environment we may also need to extract CO₂ from the atmosphere. As Wurzbacher put it, “if you take all these numbers from the I.P.C.C., you end up with something like eight to 10 billion tons — gigatons — of CO₂ that need to be removed from the air every year, if we are serious about 1.5 or 2 degrees.” "

ForHackernews 8y ago
> if we are serious about 1.5 or 2 degrees. Hint: We're not. The Americans are expecting +4C https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump...
SiempreViernes 8y ago
No, we should have started going carbon neutral in the 1980's when the science case for precautionary was solid. It is only given that carbon industry got us to ignore the dangers for more than thirty years that we now are so desperate to keep inside the carbon budget that even very inefficient solutions like carbon capture are seriously being considered.
- dotancohen 8y ago
  The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is now.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - FreeFull 8y ago
    Speaking of trees, massive reforestation could be one way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. As a bonus, you end up with a lot of lumber you can use for things like buildings.
    - dotancohen 8y ago
      My country has a holiday where the children plant trees every year.
      - schoen 8y ago
        Maybe there could be a holiday where children and adults plant trees every month or every week!
- benj111 8y ago
  I'm not sure its reasonable to require such a massive upheaval as a precaution. Remember those 'X causes cancer' articles, should we phase out everything implicated, as a precaution? I agree we should have moved earlier, and we should be moving faster though.
  - moosey 8y ago
    > Remember those 'X causes cancer' articles, should we phase out everything implicated, as a precaution? This is a problem with how the media reports science, not science itself. It's why so many people believe that scientists thought we were going to have an ice age 30 years ago: awful reporting. And back then, the upheaval wouldn't have been nearly as massive. There was less 'wealth' (read as 'carbon usage') and fewer people. It's a real pity.
    - benj111 8y ago
      It's bad reporting in the sense of, it's only one study, but if you follow the precautionary principle it surely becomes logical to ban, then investigate further?
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    It is certainly cheaper to stop smoking than cure lung cancer, if that is what you mean.
    - benj111 8y ago
      What I mean is should we be banning smoking on the basis of one study? If a study does show a link then you repeat it, get more data, work out the extent of the problem. Then you have the info to make decent public policy. And banning smoking something that's fairly easy to do, that isn't spending billions of $s of public funds, telling people they can't fly,drive,eat meat. And we still havent banned smoking.
  - lozenge 8y ago
    “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." Exxon's senior scientist, 1978. "Victory will be achieved when: (a)Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom" ... (e) Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality" (American Petroleum Institute memo, 1998) “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public” (B&W tobacco company 1969). https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Th...
- jamesblonde 8y ago
  No idea why you're being downvoted. I think everything you said is supported by strong evidence.
SamBam 8y ago
I think that the point is that if, today, you could spend $100 on pulling 1 ton of CO2 from the air, or spend $100 on green energy which prevents 2 tons of CO2 going into the air, the second is more important, even if we need to be extracting CO2 from the air. There's no point in extracting 1 ton of CO2 and putting 2 tons of CO2 back up there.

ForHackernews 8y ago

> if we are serious about 1.5 or 2 degrees. Hint: We're not. The Americans are expecting +4C https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump...

SiempreViernes 8y ago

No, we should have started going carbon neutral in the 1980's when the science case for precautionary was solid. It is only given that carbon industry got us to ignore the dangers for more than thirty years that we now are so desperate to keep inside the carbon budget that even very inefficient solutions like carbon capture are seriously being considered.

dotancohen 8y ago
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is now.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- FreeFull 8y ago
  Speaking of trees, massive reforestation could be one way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. As a bonus, you end up with a lot of lumber you can use for things like buildings.
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    My country has a holiday where the children plant trees every year.
    - schoen 8y ago
      Maybe there could be a holiday where children and adults plant trees every month or every week!
benj111 8y ago
I'm not sure its reasonable to require such a massive upheaval as a precaution. Remember those 'X causes cancer' articles, should we phase out everything implicated, as a precaution? I agree we should have moved earlier, and we should be moving faster though.
- moosey 8y ago
  > Remember those 'X causes cancer' articles, should we phase out everything implicated, as a precaution? This is a problem with how the media reports science, not science itself. It's why so many people believe that scientists thought we were going to have an ice age 30 years ago: awful reporting. And back then, the upheaval wouldn't have been nearly as massive. There was less 'wealth' (read as 'carbon usage') and fewer people. It's a real pity.
  - benj111 8y ago
    It's bad reporting in the sense of, it's only one study, but if you follow the precautionary principle it surely becomes logical to ban, then investigate further?
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  It is certainly cheaper to stop smoking than cure lung cancer, if that is what you mean.
  - benj111 8y ago
    What I mean is should we be banning smoking on the basis of one study? If a study does show a link then you repeat it, get more data, work out the extent of the problem. Then you have the info to make decent public policy. And banning smoking something that's fairly easy to do, that isn't spending billions of $s of public funds, telling people they can't fly,drive,eat meat. And we still havent banned smoking.
- lozenge 8y ago
  “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." Exxon's senior scientist, 1978. "Victory will be achieved when: (a)Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom" ... (e) Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality" (American Petroleum Institute memo, 1998) “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public” (B&W tobacco company 1969). https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Th...
jamesblonde 8y ago
No idea why you're being downvoted. I think everything you said is supported by strong evidence.

SamBam 8y ago

I think that the point is that if, today, you could spend $100 on pulling 1 ton of CO2 from the air, or spend $100 on green energy which prevents 2 tons of CO2 going into the air, the second is more important, even if we need to be extracting CO2 from the air. There's no point in extracting 1 ton of CO2 and putting 2 tons of CO2 back up there.