6 ms·

What is the technology that we do have, but we refuse to use in order to solve the problem?

r00fus 7y ago
Solar everywhere is a great start. Massive promotion of electric vehicles, combined with carbon taxes pegged to temperature. Contraceptive use promotion to reduce unwanted births.
- hvasilev 7y ago
  What is the device that captures solar energy, but does not produce massive amounts of pollution while it is being produced?
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    Solar cells. They have offset the energy needed for production in a couple of months. And of course, you can use solar energy to produce solar cells.
ralusek 7y ago
Nuclear power for energy. Forestation/harvesting for carbon capture.
- hvasilev 7y ago
  If I have to choose between mass nuclear to replace fossil fuels or the alternative of global warming .... I choose global warming.
  - suprfnk 7y ago
    Can you elaborate on why?
    - krageon 7y ago
      To my mind: - We have not solved storage in a way that is reliable enough for nuclear waste - Nuclear uses another limited resource that will run out, then we'll have to switch again - Nuclear isn't much better than renewable, and renewable is also available (and has problems that are currently tractable)
- atorodius 7y ago
  Forestation for the win! But apparently there are a lot of people looking into it (http://trees.org http://trees.org, http://edenprojects.org http://edenprojects.org, https://onetreeplanted.org https://onetreeplanted.org -- which even has awesome mini-crowd-funds for your company/wedding/etc: https://www.classy.org/campaign/tree-ambassadors/c200082 https://www.classy.org/campaign/tree-ambassadors/c200082). How do you get large scale adoption though? Laws? Government projects? Millionaires?
  - growlist 7y ago
    I'm wondering about crowdfunding and putting the land into a national land bank.
  - rexpop 7y ago
    Government projects, on the international scale.
  - ralusek 7y ago
    Government could subsidize the price of lumber. You want it to be a more economical alternative than farmland. Then leave things like efficient use of water, tree density, and type of fast growing tree to the market, those are probably already optimized.
  - claystu 7y ago
    Tax incentives. It's how we encourage a lot of good samaritan behavior. Offer tax deductions for trees and watch forests pop up everywhere.
- realusername 7y ago
  I've seen some promising research from olivine rocks for carbon capture: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/. I can't vouch for the science behind it because I'm not knowledgeable in this but it sounds a good idea.
asdff 7y ago
Rail transit
- sedachv 7y ago
  Jean-Marc Jancovici has IMO the best analysis of energy options when it comes to climate change (his whole website is excellent reading), and he does not think that rail transit can directly substitute for car and truck use with today's population distribution in developed countries: https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/transportation/could-we-replace-all-cars-by-trains-and-by-river-boats/ https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/transportation/co...
  - pyrale 7y ago
    I don't remember Jancovici having a proposition that lets us sustain the current population distribution, especially for large cities, rail or no rail.
pyrale 7y ago
Tech is not the problem here. The problem is that we refuse to adapt our society and standards to external constraints.
beefield 7y ago
> What is the technology that we do have, but we refuse to use in order to solve the problem? Money, laws and maybe some coercion tools.
growlist 7y ago
Contraception.
_ph_ 7y ago
"Refuse to use" is the wrong expression, as we are using the technology to solve the problem as in solar, wind, wave, water, etc. It is just that we are refusing to give up on fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) quickly enough. We should be pushing at the maximum possible speeds to make the transition. For an intermediate time, using gas instead of coal and oil also reduces the CO2 footprint, as gas has a 1/3rd less carbon compared to coal. Which is also a reason, why Diesel cars don't save as much carbon as the fuel consumption suggests, as Diesel fuel is about 10% more carbon-rich than gasoline per litre.
javagram 7y ago
Geoengineering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...

Solar everywhere is a great start. Massive promotion of electric vehicles, combined with carbon taxes pegged to temperature. Contraceptive use promotion to reduce unwanted births.

hvasilev 7y ago
What is the device that captures solar energy, but does not produce massive amounts of pollution while it is being produced?
- _ph_ 7y ago
  Solar cells. They have offset the energy needed for production in a couple of months. And of course, you can use solar energy to produce solar cells.

ralusek 7y ago

Nuclear power for energy. Forestation/harvesting for carbon capture.

hvasilev 7y ago
If I have to choose between mass nuclear to replace fossil fuels or the alternative of global warming .... I choose global warming.
- suprfnk 7y ago
  Can you elaborate on why?
  - krageon 7y ago
    To my mind: - We have not solved storage in a way that is reliable enough for nuclear waste - Nuclear uses another limited resource that will run out, then we'll have to switch again - Nuclear isn't much better than renewable, and renewable is also available (and has problems that are currently tractable)
atorodius 7y ago
Forestation for the win! But apparently there are a lot of people looking into it (http://trees.org http://trees.org, http://edenprojects.org http://edenprojects.org, https://onetreeplanted.org https://onetreeplanted.org -- which even has awesome mini-crowd-funds for your company/wedding/etc: https://www.classy.org/campaign/tree-ambassadors/c200082 https://www.classy.org/campaign/tree-ambassadors/c200082). How do you get large scale adoption though? Laws? Government projects? Millionaires?
- growlist 7y ago
  I'm wondering about crowdfunding and putting the land into a national land bank.
- rexpop 7y ago
  Government projects, on the international scale.
- ralusek 7y ago
  Government could subsidize the price of lumber. You want it to be a more economical alternative than farmland. Then leave things like efficient use of water, tree density, and type of fast growing tree to the market, those are probably already optimized.
- claystu 7y ago
  Tax incentives. It's how we encourage a lot of good samaritan behavior. Offer tax deductions for trees and watch forests pop up everywhere.
realusername 7y ago
I've seen some promising research from olivine rocks for carbon capture: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/. I can't vouch for the science behind it because I'm not knowledgeable in this but it sounds a good idea.

asdff 7y ago

Rail transit

sedachv 7y ago
Jean-Marc Jancovici has IMO the best analysis of energy options when it comes to climate change (his whole website is excellent reading), and he does not think that rail transit can directly substitute for car and truck use with today's population distribution in developed countries: https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/transportation/could-we-replace-all-cars-by-trains-and-by-river-boats/ https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/transportation/co...
- pyrale 7y ago
  I don't remember Jancovici having a proposition that lets us sustain the current population distribution, especially for large cities, rail or no rail.

pyrale 7y ago

Tech is not the problem here. The problem is that we refuse to adapt our society and standards to external constraints.

beefield 7y ago

> What is the technology that we do have, but we refuse to use in order to solve the problem? Money, laws and maybe some coercion tools.

growlist 7y ago

Contraception.

_ph_ 7y ago

"Refuse to use" is the wrong expression, as we are using the technology to solve the problem as in solar, wind, wave, water, etc. It is just that we are refusing to give up on fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) quickly enough. We should be pushing at the maximum possible speeds to make the transition. For an intermediate time, using gas instead of coal and oil also reduces the CO2 footprint, as gas has a 1/3rd less carbon compared to coal. Which is also a reason, why Diesel cars don't save as much carbon as the fuel consumption suggests, as Diesel fuel is about 10% more carbon-rich than gasoline per litre.

javagram 7y ago

Geoengineering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...