3 ms·
No argument here - I'm just saying we shouldn't lay off the emission reductions BEFORE we have any technological answers. Likewise, we should research such opt
by ergothus 8y ago
No argument here - I'm just saying we shouldn't lay off the emission reductions BEFORE we have any technological answers. Likewise, we should research such options rather than assuming someone will.
- philwelch 8y agoI think we're in full agreement. It appears that we've figured out how to electrify automobiles already, for instance. That's a good thing. It's just that some emission reductions are also open technological questions, and sometimes they're more or less open than the questions around sequestration, so hard-and-fast rules are hard to come by. Is it easier to sequester the emissions from space rockets than it is to build a Lofstrom loop? Is it easier to synthesize jet fuel from the atmosphere than to electrify jets? Where should R&D resources be optimally allocated, especially if we're taking a risk that certain approaches won't work out?