3 ms·

Heh I had a similar thought but then we forget that it'll get worse and accelerate if we do nothing. So there is hope of not making things much worse.

by atonse 7y ago

xwdv 7y ago
The geoengineering technology simply isn’t here. There’s no strong capitalist incentives for such tech to emerge or be developed. There’s no way we can eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the next ten years. There’s no way we can change consumer diets to rely less on methane producing animals. There’s nothing we can do to stop the acidification of oceans and the collapse of aquaculture. And when the permafrost melts and releases methane exponentially into the atmosphere it’s game over. Unless we have a way to siphon out gases from the atmosphere, we’re finished.
- omar_a1 7y ago
  We can fund the God damn research, for one. Of course, for that we'd need a functional government.
  - derg 7y ago
    Absolutely. Sure it may not be entirely possible, but we need to _try_. Nothing short of a total war mobilization of the economy and research will even remotely get close to preventing the absolute worst aspects, but it may be possible to salvage parts of the planet.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  > Unless we have a way to siphon out gases from the atmosphere, we’re finished. It's called carbon sequestration and it costs $100 - $300 per ton. So for a few $trillion, we could get net zero. Expensive, but comparable to the Iraq war or Apollo program in costs. A lot cheaper than WWII. Another way of thinking about it is that it would approximately double the price of gas.
  - omar_a1 7y ago
    This is assuming we act before any of the global homeostasis mechanisms break due to the CO2 levels (jet stream, thermohaline cycle, methane clatharates, etc. etc.), in which case it'll take far more money (and research).

3 ms·

Heh I had a similar thought but then we forget that it'll get worse and accelerate if we do nothing. So there is hope of not making things much worse.

by atonse 7y ago

Heh I had a similar thought but then we forget that it'll get worse and accelerate if we do nothing. So there is hope of not making things much worse.

xwdv 7y ago
The geoengineering technology simply isn’t here. There’s no strong capitalist incentives for such tech to emerge or be developed. There’s no way we can eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the next ten years. There’s no way we can change consumer diets to rely less on methane producing animals. There’s nothing we can do to stop the acidification of oceans and the collapse of aquaculture. And when the permafrost melts and releases methane exponentially into the atmosphere it’s game over. Unless we have a way to siphon out gases from the atmosphere, we’re finished.
- omar_a1 7y ago
  We can fund the God damn research, for one. Of course, for that we'd need a functional government.
  - derg 7y ago
    Absolutely. Sure it may not be entirely possible, but we need to _try_. Nothing short of a total war mobilization of the economy and research will even remotely get close to preventing the absolute worst aspects, but it may be possible to salvage parts of the planet.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  > Unless we have a way to siphon out gases from the atmosphere, we’re finished. It's called carbon sequestration and it costs $100 - $300 per ton. So for a few $trillion, we could get net zero. Expensive, but comparable to the Iraq war or Apollo program in costs. A lot cheaper than WWII. Another way of thinking about it is that it would approximately double the price of gas.
  - omar_a1 7y ago
    This is assuming we act before any of the global homeostasis mechanisms break due to the CO2 levels (jet stream, thermohaline cycle, methane clatharates, etc. etc.), in which case it'll take far more money (and research).