3 ms·

That's not strictly true: Airplanes, for instance, 'have' to emit CO2 via combustion of fossil fuels: any attempt to eliminate CO2 at the source is going to b

That's not strictly true: Airplanes, for instance, 'have' to emit CO2 via combustion of fossil fuels: any attempt to eliminate CO2 at the source is going to be impossible to expensive. The atmosphere has the wonderful property of being self mixing, so Texas wind and solar driven capture can offset PA natural gas[1] if that is how the economics shake out. A critique about the article: Their 'moral hazard' is a joke. CO2 is fungible. Emitting 10 tonnes and sequestering 10 tons is the same as emitting none. If the former improves people's lives (airplanes, cars, power, etc.) the decision is a no-brainer. [1] hypothetically beneficial due to variability in sun/wind in addition to geographic limitations. Power has to always be on, CO2 sequestration doesn't have to be.

the8472 7y ago
> Airplanes, for instance, 'have' to emit CO2 via combustion of fossil fuels: Batteries may be out due to weight. Hydrogen on the other hand has a higher specific energy than gasoline > Emitting 10 tonnes and sequestering 10 tons is the same as emitting none. Emitting 10 tonnes of CO2 and not sequestering will improve people's lives today even more since they don't have to pay the cost immediately. The moral hazard is being lazy because theoretically someone in the future might pull off heroic efforts to save the planet.
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  > Emitting 10 tonnes of CO2 and not sequestering will improve people's lives today even more since they don't have to pay the cost immediately. The moral hazard is being lazy because theoretically someone in the future might pull off heroic efforts to save the planet. Exactly. To restate, not emitting CO2 will make people's lives worse[1] but most of the environmental proposals I see don't seem to realize the sheer unreasonableness of their propositions which generally boil down to 'you' need to suffer (in concrete ways, e.g. a gas tax, not farming a rain forest, etc.) for the (vague) benefit of other people. [1] Given the current state of technology. re. putting the cart in front of the horse, I agree, but if air-CO2 sequestration does hit 150$/tonne as (optimistically) projected that works out to be a few bucks per gallon of gas: The economist in me says the optimal solution is to tack that on to every gallon sold (and ear mark it).
  - the8472 7y ago
    > generally boil down to 'you' need to suffer (in concrete ways, e.g. a gas tax, not farming a rain forest, etc.) for the (vague) benefit of other people. That reads fairly one-sided. Let's flip it and say you have to cut back on some luxuries today so our descendants don't die by the millions at the end of the century.
    - thereisnospork 7y ago
      It is one sided: its the view of the Brazilian logger who wants to cut down his rain forest. It takes a more credible argument than vague promises of '[his] decedents won't die by the millions' a century from now to dissuade him when his relatives live in favelas today[1]. [1] Which is exactly the sort of activity we 'first-worlders' have been benefiting from.

the8472 7y ago

> Airplanes, for instance, 'have' to emit CO2 via combustion of fossil fuels: Batteries may be out due to weight. Hydrogen on the other hand has a higher specific energy than gasoline > Emitting 10 tonnes and sequestering 10 tons is the same as emitting none. Emitting 10 tonnes of CO2 and not sequestering will improve people's lives today even more since they don't have to pay the cost immediately. The moral hazard is being lazy because theoretically someone in the future might pull off heroic efforts to save the planet.

thereisnospork 7y ago
> Emitting 10 tonnes of CO2 and not sequestering will improve people's lives today even more since they don't have to pay the cost immediately. The moral hazard is being lazy because theoretically someone in the future might pull off heroic efforts to save the planet. Exactly. To restate, not emitting CO2 will make people's lives worse[1] but most of the environmental proposals I see don't seem to realize the sheer unreasonableness of their propositions which generally boil down to 'you' need to suffer (in concrete ways, e.g. a gas tax, not farming a rain forest, etc.) for the (vague) benefit of other people. [1] Given the current state of technology. re. putting the cart in front of the horse, I agree, but if air-CO2 sequestration does hit 150$/tonne as (optimistically) projected that works out to be a few bucks per gallon of gas: The economist in me says the optimal solution is to tack that on to every gallon sold (and ear mark it).
- the8472 7y ago
  > generally boil down to 'you' need to suffer (in concrete ways, e.g. a gas tax, not farming a rain forest, etc.) for the (vague) benefit of other people. That reads fairly one-sided. Let's flip it and say you have to cut back on some luxuries today so our descendants don't die by the millions at the end of the century.
  - thereisnospork 7y ago
    It is one sided: its the view of the Brazilian logger who wants to cut down his rain forest. It takes a more credible argument than vague promises of '[his] decedents won't die by the millions' a century from now to dissuade him when his relatives live in favelas today[1]. [1] Which is exactly the sort of activity we 'first-worlders' have been benefiting from.