4 ms·

I wouldn't say people are uninterested, I would say we need to do more than hope for "silver bullet" technology solutions to address the problem after the fact.

I wouldn't say people are uninterested, I would say we need to do more than hope for "silver bullet" technology solutions to address the problem after the fact. Especially when it involves geoengineering on a scale orders of magnitude larger than have ever been attempted, and doesn't address the reason we'd even geoengineer. Humans do not have a great track record of predicting the secondary effects of their actions on the earth. Meanwhile our society is incredibly wasteful of energy, and has a ton of low hanging fruit via reduction and efficiencies. The less emissions we produce now, the less we have to clean up with solutions like the linked above. I'll also repeat this again because it's a common accusation leveled on HN. Most people interested in addressing environmental issues are not doing it to "virtue signal" or impose arbitrary values but because they want a healthier environment and to make the world sustainable for future generations.

bjornsing 7y ago
Personally I don’t care one bit about the “virtue signaling”: people can signal their virtues all they want for all I care. But it seems to me it’s more than that: there’s also a lot of that age old instinct of trying to control others behavior... There’s a lot of talk about “we cannot keep...” and “the fallacy of never ending economic growth”. To me that just sounds simplistic and ideologically motivated. When the world turns away from science and innovation, towards dogma and social control, it rarely ends well...
- dashundchen 7y ago
  > When the world turns away from science and innovation, towards dogma and social control, it rarely ends well... Great! Then you'll be happy to know the science modelling climate change due to human emissions has been well underway since the 1970s, and that science is also saying we need to reduce emissions AND sequester carbon already in the atmosphere to avoid catastrophic social and economic consequences (aka "lifestyle changes"). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115669 You should also be interested in the large amounts of innovation needed to address this - renewable energy sources storage, and delivery, innovative new ideas on how we can travel, grow our food and transform our economy into a more efficient and sustainable one. Since you're interested in carbon sequestration such as Project Vesta, I'm sure you'd agree it makes no sense numerically to only start capturing carbon without also reducing emissions which have been growing non-stop. How do you propose this happens?
  - bjornsing 7y ago
    > I'm sure you'd agree it makes no sense numerically to only start capturing carbon without also reducing emissions which have been growing non-stop. I know this is the accepted dogma, but I can’t say I see it as “numerically” self-evident. The OP seems to argue that %67 of all the CO2 emissions since the dawn of industrialization can be captured in a few decades, solely by planting trees. That sounds like a capture rate “numerically” comparable to the current emissions rate, no...? (I’m not saying there is a silver bullet, but why do people seem so hellbent on there not being one...?)
- Stanish 7y ago
  The idea that technological futurism and capitalism don’t impose incredible amounts of social control, and that they aren’t ideological & dogmatic is nonsensical.

bjornsing 7y ago

Personally I don’t care one bit about the “virtue signaling”: people can signal their virtues all they want for all I care. But it seems to me it’s more than that: there’s also a lot of that age old instinct of trying to control others behavior... There’s a lot of talk about “we cannot keep...” and “the fallacy of never ending economic growth”. To me that just sounds simplistic and ideologically motivated. When the world turns away from science and innovation, towards dogma and social control, it rarely ends well...

dashundchen 7y ago
> When the world turns away from science and innovation, towards dogma and social control, it rarely ends well... Great! Then you'll be happy to know the science modelling climate change due to human emissions has been well underway since the 1970s, and that science is also saying we need to reduce emissions AND sequester carbon already in the atmosphere to avoid catastrophic social and economic consequences (aka "lifestyle changes"). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115669 You should also be interested in the large amounts of innovation needed to address this - renewable energy sources storage, and delivery, innovative new ideas on how we can travel, grow our food and transform our economy into a more efficient and sustainable one. Since you're interested in carbon sequestration such as Project Vesta, I'm sure you'd agree it makes no sense numerically to only start capturing carbon without also reducing emissions which have been growing non-stop. How do you propose this happens?
- bjornsing 7y ago
  > I'm sure you'd agree it makes no sense numerically to only start capturing carbon without also reducing emissions which have been growing non-stop. I know this is the accepted dogma, but I can’t say I see it as “numerically” self-evident. The OP seems to argue that %67 of all the CO2 emissions since the dawn of industrialization can be captured in a few decades, solely by planting trees. That sounds like a capture rate “numerically” comparable to the current emissions rate, no...? (I’m not saying there is a silver bullet, but why do people seem so hellbent on there not being one...?)
Stanish 7y ago
The idea that technological futurism and capitalism don’t impose incredible amounts of social control, and that they aren’t ideological & dogmatic is nonsensical.