3 ms·

No. 1. Fighting climate change isn't all-or-nothing 2. You do not need to not eat in-state-vegetables to be practical about climate change. This is a dishones

No. 1. Fighting climate change isn't all-or-nothing 2. You do not need to not eat in-state-vegetables to be practical about climate change. This is a dishonest conversation tactic when vegetables are the tiniest fraction of a percentage of carbon generation. 3. There's nothing wrong with generating carbon, as long as there is a plan to offset it. So for points 2/3, a carbon-tax that was high enough to pay companies to recapture carbon (and went exclusively toward recapturing carbon) would totally address that. You could ride your hummer all day long, and you'd be paying for the carbon to be recaptured at the end of the day.

rayiner 7y ago
> 1. Fighting climate change isn't all-or-nothing It may well be all-or-nothing if you believe in the tipping point theory. And even if that doesn't happen, there is no scenario where we do a "little bit" and get a decent result. > 2. You do not need to not eat in-state-vegetables to be practical about climate change. This is a dishonest conversation tactic when vegetables are the tiniest fraction of a percentage of carbon generation. Shipping vegetables across the country would be a much larger share of CO2 emissions if we were anywhere close to where we need to be on the other stuff. In a world where China added more than 6 gigatons of CO2 emissions since 2000, developed economies must go carbon neutral or carbon negative. (And even that won't keep us to 2C unless we manage to keep India and Africa from following a similar trajectory to China--i.e. ensure that those people remain in desperate poverty.) And in a carbon-neutral economy, there is no room for organic vegetables shipped from California to Maryland. > recapture carbon (and went exclusively toward recapturing carbon) That would be great if the technology existed.
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  The technology exists... Google it...? ("cost of carbon capture")
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    All I get when I search that are some press releases from researchers. Where is the actual installation? What’s the actual cost? Does the cost scale linearly to gigatonnes, or e.g. does it require some chemicals that are cheap now but wouldn’t be so cheap if we needed much more of them?

rayiner 7y ago

> 1. Fighting climate change isn't all-or-nothing It may well be all-or-nothing if you believe in the tipping point theory. And even if that doesn't happen, there is no scenario where we do a "little bit" and get a decent result. > 2. You do not need to not eat in-state-vegetables to be practical about climate change. This is a dishonest conversation tactic when vegetables are the tiniest fraction of a percentage of carbon generation. Shipping vegetables across the country would be a much larger share of CO2 emissions if we were anywhere close to where we need to be on the other stuff. In a world where China added more than 6 gigatons of CO2 emissions since 2000, developed economies must go carbon neutral or carbon negative. (And even that won't keep us to 2C unless we manage to keep India and Africa from following a similar trajectory to China--i.e. ensure that those people remain in desperate poverty.) And in a carbon-neutral economy, there is no room for organic vegetables shipped from California to Maryland. > recapture carbon (and went exclusively toward recapturing carbon) That would be great if the technology existed.

alexandercrohde 7y ago
The technology exists... Google it...? ("cost of carbon capture")
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  All I get when I search that are some press releases from researchers. Where is the actual installation? What’s the actual cost? Does the cost scale linearly to gigatonnes, or e.g. does it require some chemicals that are cheap now but wouldn’t be so cheap if we needed much more of them?