5 ms·

I think the author actually agrees with you, per the article itself: "there are two general approaches to keep warming to below a certain level: - Reducin

I think the author actually agrees with you, per the article itself: "there are two general approaches to keep warming to below a certain level: - Reducing emissions - Removing previous emissions from the sky If you remember one thing from this piece, it should be that we need to do both. Gone are the days where optimistic emissions reductions kept us below a 2-degree warming target."

jokoon 7y ago
Except reducing emissions seems much more doable, safe and simple. It's just politically difficult. I have little hope that technology will be able to capture co2 in a manner that will be sufficient. I don't like those sorts of techs because people will brandish them as a solution, while it's highly unlikely they will help at all.
- HunOL 7y ago
  Changing minds and habits of billions of people is more simple and feasible? For me it's ridiculous. Any technological solution looks way better for me.
  - jokoon 7y ago
    if no solutions is available and food security is threatened, minds and habits don't matter.
blablabla123 7y ago
The alternative to reducing emissions etc. is called "Geoengineering" and there are dozens of proposed methods. [1] In fact some have even been tested in the field, like growing algae. Unfortunately most solutions have unlikely but quite extreme risk scenarios. Although some surface reflection techniques seem actually reasonable [2] The article seems to ignore scientific research from the field that actually started decades ago, so it's difficult to take that very seriously. To me most of these methods look more like emergency measures when sh* literally hits the fan... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(climate_engineering) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(climate_e...

jokoon 7y ago

Except reducing emissions seems much more doable, safe and simple. It's just politically difficult. I have little hope that technology will be able to capture co2 in a manner that will be sufficient. I don't like those sorts of techs because people will brandish them as a solution, while it's highly unlikely they will help at all.

HunOL 7y ago
Changing minds and habits of billions of people is more simple and feasible? For me it's ridiculous. Any technological solution looks way better for me.
- jokoon 7y ago
  if no solutions is available and food security is threatened, minds and habits don't matter.

blablabla123 7y ago

The alternative to reducing emissions etc. is called "Geoengineering" and there are dozens of proposed methods. [1] In fact some have even been tested in the field, like growing algae. Unfortunately most solutions have unlikely but quite extreme risk scenarios. Although some surface reflection techniques seem actually reasonable [2] The article seems to ignore scientific research from the field that actually started decades ago, so it's difficult to take that very seriously. To me most of these methods look more like emergency measures when sh* literally hits the fan... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(climate_engineering) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(climate_e...