3 ms·

Wouldn't stopping our production of carbon dioxide essentially mean ending our industrial civilization? We would have to go back to an agricultural civilizatio

by yters 7y ago

Wouldn't stopping our production of carbon dioxide essentially mean ending our industrial civilization? We would have to go back to an agricultural civilization like during the Middle Ages? Frankly, that seems impossible to bring about unless there is worldwide systemic collapse brought on by global warming or some other global catastrophe.

makerofspoons 7y ago
We don't have to stop emitting all carbon dioxide, we need to develop the technology to capture and sequester what we do emit, however.
- ddxxdd 7y ago
  That technology has existed for billions of years: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-cou... I personally calculated that planting trees would be thousands of times more cost-effective than driving Tesla vehicles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 Cutting down a fraction of industrial activity- which represents a fraction of human-made CO2 output, which is only about 5% of mother nature's CO2 output- seems a lot less efficient than improving upon mother nature's own carbon sequestration schemes. It's better to sequester potentially all of the CO2 in the atmosphere instead of targeting a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of atmospheric CO2
  - aeternus 7y ago
    Yes, I'm not sure why so many people attempt to shame people into using less energy. That strategy has a long history of not working. The answer has to be to apply technology. Cleaner energy generation and new (or old) methods to sequester CO2.
_rpd 7y ago
Nuclear power can support our industrial civilization just fine.
imtringued 7y ago
No it wouldn't because renewable energy and nuclear power exist. Our quality of life might drop by 50% but there is no reason we can't maintain our industrial civilization to some degree. Intermittency beyond a day isn't even a problem because wind and solar basically cancel each others seasonal shortages out. There will be a few days in the year during which output drops by 60% but is that the end of the world for us? It absolutely isn't. CO2 pollution is mostly about short sighted greed than about maintaining our advanced civilization.

by yters 7y ago

makerofspoons 7y ago

We don't have to stop emitting all carbon dioxide, we need to develop the technology to capture and sequester what we do emit, however.

ddxxdd 7y ago
That technology has existed for billions of years: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-cou... I personally calculated that planting trees would be thousands of times more cost-effective than driving Tesla vehicles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 Cutting down a fraction of industrial activity- which represents a fraction of human-made CO2 output, which is only about 5% of mother nature's CO2 output- seems a lot less efficient than improving upon mother nature's own carbon sequestration schemes. It's better to sequester potentially all of the CO2 in the atmosphere instead of targeting a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of atmospheric CO2
- aeternus 7y ago
  Yes, I'm not sure why so many people attempt to shame people into using less energy. That strategy has a long history of not working. The answer has to be to apply technology. Cleaner energy generation and new (or old) methods to sequester CO2.

_rpd 7y ago

Nuclear power can support our industrial civilization just fine.

imtringued 7y ago

No it wouldn't because renewable energy and nuclear power exist. Our quality of life might drop by 50% but there is no reason we can't maintain our industrial civilization to some degree. Intermittency beyond a day isn't even a problem because wind and solar basically cancel each others seasonal shortages out. There will be a few days in the year during which output drops by 60% but is that the end of the world for us? It absolutely isn't. CO2 pollution is mostly about short sighted greed than about maintaining our advanced civilization.