4 ms·

We shouldn't do anything in any direction without detailed comparisons. https://www.drawdown.org/ https://www.drawdown.org/ has a big list of things that can b

We shouldn't do anything in any direction without detailed comparisons. https://www.drawdown.org/ https://www.drawdown.org/ has a big list of things that can be done, with the benefits of each in terms of cost and carbon reduction. It would make most sense to work through the list. If you guessed what number 1 is, you're a smarter human than I am! https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/materials/refrigerant-management https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/materials/refrigerant-man...

perfunctory 7y ago
> We shouldn't do anything in any direction without detailed comparisons. I feel differently. We should do everything. All at the same time. We don't have the luxury of time to pick and choose anymore. Good that you brought up the drawdown project. Even the number 1 on their list is "only" like about 5% of total ghg. No single solution will be enough. So we need to try to do as much in as many sectors as possible. Including fracking.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >I feel differently. We should do everything. All at the same time. We don't have the luxury of time to pick and choose anymore. As much as it would incredibly suck (for convenience and variety in life) I think we, as a species, need to completely abandon fossil fuels in the next 10 years. Sadly it'll never happen, we will be burning fossil fuels well past seeing massive deaths from starvation/drought/unpredictable weather/food wars. Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight.
  - perfunctory 7y ago
    > As much as it would incredibly suck (for convenience and variety in life) The good news is that it wouldn't even suck. I don't think so. We are being brainwashed (sorry, being informed about products and services via advertisement) that car ownership is the best thing since the pill, and that flying to a tech conference is a great experience. There are better (and much less polluting) ways to have fun. I believe without the fossil industry we will flourish and our quality of life will skyrocket.
    - ahje 7y ago
      > car ownership While ownership isn't that important per se, access to a car is vital for many people living where there are no public transport options available. Unless you intend to start relocating people forcibly, we need to maintain some kind of transport ability on the country side. Doesn't have to be run on fossil fuels, though.
      - perfunctory 7y ago
        > Unless you intend to start relocating people forcibly You don't need to force anyone. It's happening by itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization
        ahje 7y ago
        Of course, but that will be a considerably longer process than desired if we're going to rely on that for reducing emissions. After all, there are always going to be some people living outside cities, and in most cases, public transport would be a waste out here because of the long distances involved and the low population density. Bring farming machinery into the equation and replacing fossil fuels suddenly becomes far more important than reducing car ownership.
    - ryanmercer 7y ago
      >The good news is that it wouldn't even suck. It would for me. I work in international freight, I'd be unemployed. It looks like my employer may have used 1.2 billion gallons of jet fuel alone last year, if these figures are accurate https://www.statista.com/statistics/878539/fedex-express-total-jet-fuel-consumption/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/878539/fedex-express-tot... -- at 9.57kg of carbon per gallon that is 11,640,000 metric tons of carbon (again if the numbers are accurate) just from our planes last year :( We'd also be forced back to a (largely) pre 1950s-1960sish era level of tech as devices started to die off simply because we currently don't have the means of mining and moving goods globally on renewable energy at anywhere near current levels. I'm mostly fine with this though, if I woke up tomorrow and magic had made the computers/the internet/smartphones/e-readers disappear I'd have a really rough few days then I'd be like "oh well, let's go outside or down to the library, let me show these kids how a card catalog works".

perfunctory 7y ago

> We shouldn't do anything in any direction without detailed comparisons. I feel differently. We should do everything. All at the same time. We don't have the luxury of time to pick and choose anymore. Good that you brought up the drawdown project. Even the number 1 on their list is "only" like about 5% of total ghg. No single solution will be enough. So we need to try to do as much in as many sectors as possible. Including fracking.

ryanmercer 7y ago
>I feel differently. We should do everything. All at the same time. We don't have the luxury of time to pick and choose anymore. As much as it would incredibly suck (for convenience and variety in life) I think we, as a species, need to completely abandon fossil fuels in the next 10 years. Sadly it'll never happen, we will be burning fossil fuels well past seeing massive deaths from starvation/drought/unpredictable weather/food wars. Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > As much as it would incredibly suck (for convenience and variety in life) The good news is that it wouldn't even suck. I don't think so. We are being brainwashed (sorry, being informed about products and services via advertisement) that car ownership is the best thing since the pill, and that flying to a tech conference is a great experience. There are better (and much less polluting) ways to have fun. I believe without the fossil industry we will flourish and our quality of life will skyrocket.
  - ahje 7y ago
    > car ownership While ownership isn't that important per se, access to a car is vital for many people living where there are no public transport options available. Unless you intend to start relocating people forcibly, we need to maintain some kind of transport ability on the country side. Doesn't have to be run on fossil fuels, though.
    - perfunctory 7y ago
      > Unless you intend to start relocating people forcibly You don't need to force anyone. It's happening by itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization
      - ahje 7y ago
        Of course, but that will be a considerably longer process than desired if we're going to rely on that for reducing emissions. After all, there are always going to be some people living outside cities, and in most cases, public transport would be a waste out here because of the long distances involved and the low population density. Bring farming machinery into the equation and replacing fossil fuels suddenly becomes far more important than reducing car ownership.
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    >The good news is that it wouldn't even suck. It would for me. I work in international freight, I'd be unemployed. It looks like my employer may have used 1.2 billion gallons of jet fuel alone last year, if these figures are accurate https://www.statista.com/statistics/878539/fedex-express-total-jet-fuel-consumption/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/878539/fedex-express-tot... -- at 9.57kg of carbon per gallon that is 11,640,000 metric tons of carbon (again if the numbers are accurate) just from our planes last year :( We'd also be forced back to a (largely) pre 1950s-1960sish era level of tech as devices started to die off simply because we currently don't have the means of mining and moving goods globally on renewable energy at anywhere near current levels. I'm mostly fine with this though, if I woke up tomorrow and magic had made the computers/the internet/smartphones/e-readers disappear I'd have a really rough few days then I'd be like "oh well, let's go outside or down to the library, let me show these kids how a card catalog works".