3 ms·

The answer to that problem was already solved then: plant a billion trees or something to that degree and there will be no excess carbon. >As one example, enou

The answer to that problem was already solved then: plant a billion trees or something to that degree and there will be no excess carbon. >As one example, enough CO2 will noticeably harm your intellect, and there is enough unburned carbon in the world to make us all dull-minded. Has IQ been going down due to that? Is that theoretical? Seems like improper breathing is a larger issue, and people in cities with worst local air have higher IQs than those in rural areas. Seems at best a non factor.

ben_w 6y ago
> The answer to that problem was already solved then: plant a billion trees or something to that degree and there will be no excess carbon. I’m glad we agree there is a problem. Although a mere “billion” trees is well short of the scale of the solution. Solving CO2 with carbon offsetting is part of the general model of “carbon credits“ and “carbon trading”, which can only work with a government-and-trade-agreement-mandated minimum carbon price. That’s fine by me. Anything is, so long as it works and works “soon-ish” rather than “eventually”. I am optimistic about the technology, I am pessimistic about the politics. > Has IQ been going down due to that? Is that theoretical? It is directly measurable in situations where CO2 is higher than wilderness levels. The study I’ve seen had three specific tested CO2 concentrations, which were roughly comparable to various modern-life scenarios such as city center offices or wearing full-face motorcycle helmets. > Seems like improper breathing is a larger issue, and people in cities with worst local air have higher IQs than those in rural areas. Seems at best a non factor. The CO2 level inside cities are indeed higher. As are the CO2 level inside sealed offices inside a city. These higher levels have a demonstrable, repeatably testable, negative impact on reasoning skills. I have seen no prior claim of correlation between location and IQ, however I have seen a claim that city dwellers walk faster which turned out to be because cities attract young, skilled, ambitious people. Therefore, you would need to show causation not just correlation — especially as there are repeated demonstrations that CO2 impairs cognitive function, and that’s hardly the only pollutant one should expect to be more common in a city. Note that burning all the known carbon fuel reserves would raise CO2 levels in the wilderness to higher levels than currently found in city center offices whose windows have been closed all week. Also note that resource consumption has historically been exponential, so this is a larger problem going forward than you might expect looking backwards.
- Waterfall 6y ago
  Have you listened to Freeman Dyson talk about this matter? I call it a problem mainly because it's dealt with as an issue. Why is a billion trees short? What is it short of? The kind of person who likes carbon taxes would prefer their use even if carbon dioxide had no effect on the environment. It again is a control for small developing countries to be overburdened, while the developed counties can happily use their advanced energy creation while the poor remain poor and in stasis. Freeman mentions that global warming is not the same evil as poverty, hunger and disease which are greater problems. Another posted mentioned using fancy expensive contraptions to capture carbon. We have trees that do everything naturally without the need of silicon valley or other tech companies to make advanced expensive methods to capture carbon when the natural means does everything we need. Because of the issues with the energy grid, they've been giving away LEDs and other energy saving devices to help us use less energy. I'd say that electronics use has gone up but electricity for them hasn't since we use smartphones a lot more. Air conditioners are still the worst offender for overuse of energy.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Most of those points are irrelevant. The main relevant question is “why is a billion trees not enough?”, to which the answer is: as a rough guide, undoing emissions from 1850-2020 would require more than the total biomass of the entire planet. It is also important to note that, even if it was physically possible to solve this problem in this way, you can tell it isn’t economical to do so, because if it was we’d already have fully (not partially) replaced fossil fuels with biofuels.
    - Waterfall 6y ago
      How are they irrelevant? The reason there are countries that developed and became first world countries is precisely because they used fossil fuels. Preventing other countries from doing the same for the sake of protecting the environment (which by the way is never in stasis) is simply condemning people to poverty, disease, basically to cripple poor nations. It seems very nationalistic under the guise of protecting the environment. >undoing emissions from 1850-2020 would require more than the total biomass of the entire planet. So we created more carbon than existed? Are you familiar with the fact that matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed? Carbon existed before as animals and other biomass, and you are saying now that the total biomass of the planet is not enough and we generated CO2 from thin air? >It is also important to note that, even if it was physically possible to solve this problem in this way, you can tell it isn’t economical to do so, because if it was we’d already have fully (not partially) replaced fossil fuels with biofuels. The dearman engine is zero emissions refrigeration truck, and runs on nitrogen. It is not being adopted into more developed countries despite being better, because of legacy vehicles. There are many reasons why biofuel hasn't taken off in the US but in many other countries it has. So making more expensive technology for carbon capture is more economical? The problem they solved then was not fuel recycling, it was carbon capture. You can look it up (I'm on mobile) and state the issues with it. Even at the cost of $50 a tree, its 50 billion to stop worrying about carbon emissions.

ben_w 6y ago

> The answer to that problem was already solved then: plant a billion trees or something to that degree and there will be no excess carbon. I’m glad we agree there is a problem. Although a mere “billion” trees is well short of the scale of the solution. Solving CO2 with carbon offsetting is part of the general model of “carbon credits“ and “carbon trading”, which can only work with a government-and-trade-agreement-mandated minimum carbon price. That’s fine by me. Anything is, so long as it works and works “soon-ish” rather than “eventually”. I am optimistic about the technology, I am pessimistic about the politics. > Has IQ been going down due to that? Is that theoretical? It is directly measurable in situations where CO2 is higher than wilderness levels. The study I’ve seen had three specific tested CO2 concentrations, which were roughly comparable to various modern-life scenarios such as city center offices or wearing full-face motorcycle helmets. > Seems like improper breathing is a larger issue, and people in cities with worst local air have higher IQs than those in rural areas. Seems at best a non factor. The CO2 level inside cities are indeed higher. As are the CO2 level inside sealed offices inside a city. These higher levels have a demonstrable, repeatably testable, negative impact on reasoning skills. I have seen no prior claim of correlation between location and IQ, however I have seen a claim that city dwellers walk faster which turned out to be because cities attract young, skilled, ambitious people. Therefore, you would need to show causation not just correlation — especially as there are repeated demonstrations that CO2 impairs cognitive function, and that’s hardly the only pollutant one should expect to be more common in a city. Note that burning all the known carbon fuel reserves would raise CO2 levels in the wilderness to higher levels than currently found in city center offices whose windows have been closed all week. Also note that resource consumption has historically been exponential, so this is a larger problem going forward than you might expect looking backwards.

Waterfall 6y ago
Have you listened to Freeman Dyson talk about this matter? I call it a problem mainly because it's dealt with as an issue. Why is a billion trees short? What is it short of? The kind of person who likes carbon taxes would prefer their use even if carbon dioxide had no effect on the environment. It again is a control for small developing countries to be overburdened, while the developed counties can happily use their advanced energy creation while the poor remain poor and in stasis. Freeman mentions that global warming is not the same evil as poverty, hunger and disease which are greater problems. Another posted mentioned using fancy expensive contraptions to capture carbon. We have trees that do everything naturally without the need of silicon valley or other tech companies to make advanced expensive methods to capture carbon when the natural means does everything we need. Because of the issues with the energy grid, they've been giving away LEDs and other energy saving devices to help us use less energy. I'd say that electronics use has gone up but electricity for them hasn't since we use smartphones a lot more. Air conditioners are still the worst offender for overuse of energy.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Most of those points are irrelevant. The main relevant question is “why is a billion trees not enough?”, to which the answer is: as a rough guide, undoing emissions from 1850-2020 would require more than the total biomass of the entire planet. It is also important to note that, even if it was physically possible to solve this problem in this way, you can tell it isn’t economical to do so, because if it was we’d already have fully (not partially) replaced fossil fuels with biofuels.
  - Waterfall 6y ago
    How are they irrelevant? The reason there are countries that developed and became first world countries is precisely because they used fossil fuels. Preventing other countries from doing the same for the sake of protecting the environment (which by the way is never in stasis) is simply condemning people to poverty, disease, basically to cripple poor nations. It seems very nationalistic under the guise of protecting the environment. >undoing emissions from 1850-2020 would require more than the total biomass of the entire planet. So we created more carbon than existed? Are you familiar with the fact that matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed? Carbon existed before as animals and other biomass, and you are saying now that the total biomass of the planet is not enough and we generated CO2 from thin air? >It is also important to note that, even if it was physically possible to solve this problem in this way, you can tell it isn’t economical to do so, because if it was we’d already have fully (not partially) replaced fossil fuels with biofuels. The dearman engine is zero emissions refrigeration truck, and runs on nitrogen. It is not being adopted into more developed countries despite being better, because of legacy vehicles. There are many reasons why biofuel hasn't taken off in the US but in many other countries it has. So making more expensive technology for carbon capture is more economical? The problem they solved then was not fuel recycling, it was carbon capture. You can look it up (I'm on mobile) and state the issues with it. Even at the cost of $50 a tree, its 50 billion to stop worrying about carbon emissions.