44 ms·
That’s to counteract for 100% of emissions, right? A more reasonable goal would be to go for 10%. Still very ambitious, but could be done and would have a prett
by baron816 7y ago
That’s to counteract for 100% of emissions, right? A more reasonable goal would be to go for 10%. Still very ambitious, but could be done and would have a pretty huge impact. Combine that carbon pricing, technological advancements, and other sequestration schemes, and targets for avoiding environmental catastrophe seem achievable.
- ForHackernews 7y agoSorry, can you explain why you think counteracting 10% of emissions would have "a pretty huge impact"? The best science from the IPCC suggests we have to cut net carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 in order to have a moderate chance of avoiding the most catastrophic effects of the climate disaster. I'm not saying 10% isn't ambitious, but it's entirely insufficient to the scope of the problem.
- strainer 7y agoAforestation is another big opportunity to absorb carbon and can be combined to increase habitat for animals and biophillic settings and work for people, as well as produce sustainable building and manufacturing materials - and even some fuel. The IPCCs primary goal is to reduce carbon output, not figure out a way to enable it to continue. We have renewable and sustainable power technologies ready to reduce carbon output rapidly as soon as the political will to proceed is won. This potentially huge mining scheme involves releasing what is in simple terms very large amounts of a pollutant into the Ocean. Its anticipated that the effects of this particular pollution will be beneficial, but we have no natural history to show for its ecological effects. Forests are already a great part of our worlds natural history. I think it is a worthwhile scheme to begin implementing and observing the effects on Ocean ecology and also on the global mining industry which it has potential to stimulate. But the 100% target is an oversell in my view.
- baron816 7y agoI mean using this project to counteract 10% instead of 100%. We don't have to rely on a single tool to eliminate carbon emissions, we can use a bunch of them.
- tom_mellior 7y agoWe need to eliminate actul emissions. As in, actual exhaust gases coming out of cars and planes and snokestacks, not just mathematically offset "net" emissions. There is no way around that. Then, on top of that, an additional 10% through this scheme looks pretty useful.
- lmm 7y ago> We need to eliminate actul emissions. As in, actual exhaust gases coming out of cars and planes and snokestacks, not just mathematically offset "net" emissions. There is no way around that. How so? What difference is there between emitting zero and emitting x kilograms and sequestering x kilograms?
- tom_mellior 7y agoExtra work. Exactly the problem of having to mine and dump a lot more minerals or plant a lot more trees or whatever if we keep emitting too much.
- lmm 7y agoMarket pricing can take care of that though. If the thing that creates carbon emissions is valuable enough that it's cheaper to offset those emissions than stop doing the thing (or find a non-emitting way to do the thing), it makes sense to do the thing and the offsetting.
- tom_mellior 7y agoAgain, nobody is saying that emissions need to go to absolute zero, but they do need to be cut. The less "valuable" part of them, if you will.
- tom_mellior 7y agoOh, I see now that my "eliminate emissions" above could be read as "eliminate all emissions". That's not what I meant, but it's my fault for not putting it clearly (and the typos as well, I was typing only half-awake). Anyway, let's eliminate a lot of emissions, including pretty much all from land vehicles, as soon as possible. And also sequester carbon.
- simonebrunozzi 7y agoThis doesn't have to be the only initiative to reduce CO2. It could be used in combination with reforestation, reducing emissions, etc.