3 ms·

5% doesn’t solve the problem, but it makes it more tractable. Enough 5% (or 4%, 3%, 2%…) solutions that integrate well into the existing economy, and you get GH

5% doesn’t solve the problem, but it makes it more tractable. Enough 5% (or 4%, 3%, 2%…) solutions that integrate well into the existing economy, and you get GHG emissions into a range where the complex, expensive, and disruptive (in the traditional sense of the term) game-changing technologies become reasonable. At some point we will end up diverting a sizable percentage of global productivity to either scrubbing CO2 or dealing with the effects of our failure to prevent or capture source emissions, so those small reductions, implemented as quickly as possible, can add up to significant downline savings.

Spooky23 7y ago
...or you could leave the cows alone and impose some regulatory controls on oil/gas production and yield that reduction in a few months. Big money is hoping to disrupt agriculture by shifting to fake meat substitutes. Shifting to some sort of soy/pea/coconut mix isn’t much better for the earth or human health.
- ssijak 7y ago
  How not? Done some math to share? If all the soy fed to beef is just fed to humans (or convertes back to rainforests in Brazil) we would be in much better shape.
dcolkitt 7y ago
> At some point we will end up diverting a sizable percentage of global productivity to either scrubbing CO2 or dealing with the effects of our failure Not necessarily. Current research indicates that stratospheric aerosol injections could lower global temperatures enough to offset greenhouse gas at a price tag of $3 billion per year. That's only 0.002% of world GDP. The technology's well-understood and the effects are already well-tested as it basically mimics the global cooling seen after major volcanic eruptions. I'm not saying it's a sure shot. But it's a very very promising technology that could potentially sidestep the need to reduce carbon emissions whatsoever. At the very least we should at least be funding more research and doing small-scale deployments to test it in production. [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d
- jaakl 7y ago
  Essentially it is covering earth with special clouds. Main problem here is that you can never remove them, if you keep things on earth unchanged then over decades of our everincreasing energy consumption and co2, methane etc production you just need more and more such protection, until the sun and blue sky is never seen. It is not resolving the problem, it is just hiding it more and more.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Is it impossible to find suitable compounds that would degrade to a point of no longer working, with a reasonable half-life. So we could reapply or not as surprise to achieve the cooling needed. [fwiw this seems a very high risk strategy to me]
  - imtringued 7y ago
    In our current political climate this would basically end with climate change denial winning and continuing to do business as usual until all fossil fuels have been burned. Eventually we cannot afford to geoengineer the atmosphere any longer and then it is not just "good night" for humans but for all animals on the planet. I feel this could end up being worse than our current path but it gives us more time for carbon capture to become economical.

Spooky23 7y ago

...or you could leave the cows alone and impose some regulatory controls on oil/gas production and yield that reduction in a few months. Big money is hoping to disrupt agriculture by shifting to fake meat substitutes. Shifting to some sort of soy/pea/coconut mix isn’t much better for the earth or human health.

ssijak 7y ago
How not? Done some math to share? If all the soy fed to beef is just fed to humans (or convertes back to rainforests in Brazil) we would be in much better shape.

dcolkitt 7y ago

> At some point we will end up diverting a sizable percentage of global productivity to either scrubbing CO2 or dealing with the effects of our failure Not necessarily. Current research indicates that stratospheric aerosol injections could lower global temperatures enough to offset greenhouse gas at a price tag of $3 billion per year. That's only 0.002% of world GDP. The technology's well-understood and the effects are already well-tested as it basically mimics the global cooling seen after major volcanic eruptions. I'm not saying it's a sure shot. But it's a very very promising technology that could potentially sidestep the need to reduce carbon emissions whatsoever. At the very least we should at least be funding more research and doing small-scale deployments to test it in production. [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d

jaakl 7y ago
Essentially it is covering earth with special clouds. Main problem here is that you can never remove them, if you keep things on earth unchanged then over decades of our everincreasing energy consumption and co2, methane etc production you just need more and more such protection, until the sun and blue sky is never seen. It is not resolving the problem, it is just hiding it more and more.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Is it impossible to find suitable compounds that would degrade to a point of no longer working, with a reasonable half-life. So we could reapply or not as surprise to achieve the cooling needed. [fwiw this seems a very high risk strategy to me]
- imtringued 7y ago
  In our current political climate this would basically end with climate change denial winning and continuing to do business as usual until all fossil fuels have been burned. Eventually we cannot afford to geoengineer the atmosphere any longer and then it is not just "good night" for humans but for all animals on the planet. I feel this could end up being worse than our current path but it gives us more time for carbon capture to become economical.