4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThat 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 agoYes, 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.