8 ms·

Zero carbon or negative carbon is definitely attainable. You can put more carbon back into the ground than you burn / breathe to get below zero.

ThomPete 6y ago
not if you want to live a modern life with all the benefits that comes from that.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  This comment isn’t adding to the conversation.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    I am sorry you feel like that. Personally I would always want to factor in some sort of ROI for the conversation to have any meaningful context. There are many ways we can "fix" things but the cost of the fix should always be measured against what it is fixing.
    - Schiendelman 6y ago
      That’s a better comment! I agree with that. What you said above was not this.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        That's exactly what I said above just in fever words. What other interpretation are you thinking about?
  - dongvsascript 6y ago
    This comment isn’t adding to the conversation. the one you replied to however, is making the point that extra carbon emissions are required by the modern lifestyle, and we would have to give up some of its benefits to attain the zero goal. hence adding to the conversation. how about if you want to have a meta discussion about the discussion, you start a separate thread no one will read, and stop spamming the discussion with offtopic comments.
- dvdkhlng 6y ago
  > not if you want to live a modern life with all the benefits that comes from that. That seems like a rather imprecise and thereby meaningless refutation of the parent's point. IMO a more honest statement of that idea would be: "Not if you want to live a totally unconstrained life, drawing on all currently available benefits, whether neccessary or not". I do think, that "modern life" would be compatible with zero CO2 emission (for some definition of "modern life"), people would merely have to face more constraints and regulation.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    Can you define what you mean with necessary more precisely?
- adrianN 6y ago
  No, that is not true. We know how to produce energy without fossil fuels. All carbon emission can either be completely replaced by such means, or adequately reverted.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    we do? How do you do heavy industrial production without coal, gas or oil?
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Production of what? I've worked in one industrial plant, and they mostly just needed power and steam to run the processing equipment. If you need oil as a chemical input, you could offset that carbon or likely synthesize it. But even just reducing our fossil oil use to ingredients and not fuel would make a massive difference.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      Yeah we do. Nuclear, solar, wind. If you absolutely can't do something without releasing carbon (concrete and air travel are an example that comes to mind), you use carbon-free energy to suck CO2 from the air and sequester it. That just costs money.
      - mrpopo 6y ago
        Money, and space, and natural resources for the CCS membrane / infrastructure, etc. No guarantee that none of those will run out if we try to do this at the required scale.
        adrianN 6y ago
        No guarantee until we do it, but all signs point to it easier than, say, WW2.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        It's not that simple. Less than 1% of energy comes from wind and solar and we aren't looking at more than 3-4% in 2030. Wind and solar require either nuclear, gas, coal and oil as backup. Nuclear is completely out of vogue and will take years to build. It's not just concrete and air travel it's ships, trucks, steel production, anything that require large amount of heat. You can't power a hospital based on solar and wind etc. Fossil fuels are not going anywhere until we either get fusion or some sort of fuel cell technology, but they require som fundamental breakthroughs we aren't close to meeting just yet. The problem is doing things at scale not just proving in some lab what is theoretically possible.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  16 tons of CO2 per year per capita. That's all you need to offset. We could probably manage that with a single digit cut to GDP.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  You're right that a sustainable economy will demand change. I think the problem is thinking that all the change will be bad. Some things that will have to change: - More pubic transit on trains - Less packaging and throw away plastic utensils so you might have to carry a fork with you or employ more dishwashers at restaurants - Less meat and fish consumption, returning America to its more traditional diets modulo beyond meat type substitutes. - More local production and transport instead of shipping things across the world - Less non-essential work and the travel accompanying it - More urbanization to make ecological systems more efficient - Use of LED lighting systems - Less "fast fashion" and wearing more durable clothing - Use of electric heat wherever possible - Widespread battery production - Global solar network to ship sunlight power around the world - Emphasizing power efficiency in electronics Some of these changes are fairly disruptive, but extremely mild compared to the challenges humans have faced in history such as war and starvation. Keep in mind that these so-called "modern lifestyles" that are most carbon intensive are lived most vibrantly by the wealthy (e.g. private jets, endless consumption of materials). Many people will not be hugely inconvenienced compared to their current life circumstances.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    if you want humans to change you have to come up with better solutions not just ask people to change. It's never worked and it never will.

ThomPete 6y ago

not if you want to live a modern life with all the benefits that comes from that.

Schiendelman 6y ago
This comment isn’t adding to the conversation.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  I am sorry you feel like that. Personally I would always want to factor in some sort of ROI for the conversation to have any meaningful context. There are many ways we can "fix" things but the cost of the fix should always be measured against what it is fixing.
  - Schiendelman 6y ago
    That’s a better comment! I agree with that. What you said above was not this.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      That's exactly what I said above just in fever words. What other interpretation are you thinking about?
- dongvsascript 6y ago
  This comment isn’t adding to the conversation. the one you replied to however, is making the point that extra carbon emissions are required by the modern lifestyle, and we would have to give up some of its benefits to attain the zero goal. hence adding to the conversation. how about if you want to have a meta discussion about the discussion, you start a separate thread no one will read, and stop spamming the discussion with offtopic comments.
dvdkhlng 6y ago
> not if you want to live a modern life with all the benefits that comes from that. That seems like a rather imprecise and thereby meaningless refutation of the parent's point. IMO a more honest statement of that idea would be: "Not if you want to live a totally unconstrained life, drawing on all currently available benefits, whether neccessary or not". I do think, that "modern life" would be compatible with zero CO2 emission (for some definition of "modern life"), people would merely have to face more constraints and regulation.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  Can you define what you mean with necessary more precisely?
adrianN 6y ago
No, that is not true. We know how to produce energy without fossil fuels. All carbon emission can either be completely replaced by such means, or adequately reverted.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  we do? How do you do heavy industrial production without coal, gas or oil?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Production of what? I've worked in one industrial plant, and they mostly just needed power and steam to run the processing equipment. If you need oil as a chemical input, you could offset that carbon or likely synthesize it. But even just reducing our fossil oil use to ingredients and not fuel would make a massive difference.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Yeah we do. Nuclear, solar, wind. If you absolutely can't do something without releasing carbon (concrete and air travel are an example that comes to mind), you use carbon-free energy to suck CO2 from the air and sequester it. That just costs money.
    - mrpopo 6y ago
      Money, and space, and natural resources for the CCS membrane / infrastructure, etc. No guarantee that none of those will run out if we try to do this at the required scale.
      - adrianN 6y ago
        No guarantee until we do it, but all signs point to it easier than, say, WW2.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      It's not that simple. Less than 1% of energy comes from wind and solar and we aren't looking at more than 3-4% in 2030. Wind and solar require either nuclear, gas, coal and oil as backup. Nuclear is completely out of vogue and will take years to build. It's not just concrete and air travel it's ships, trucks, steel production, anything that require large amount of heat. You can't power a hospital based on solar and wind etc. Fossil fuels are not going anywhere until we either get fusion or some sort of fuel cell technology, but they require som fundamental breakthroughs we aren't close to meeting just yet. The problem is doing things at scale not just proving in some lab what is theoretically possible.
Dylan16807 6y ago
16 tons of CO2 per year per capita. That's all you need to offset. We could probably manage that with a single digit cut to GDP.
tehjoker 6y ago
You're right that a sustainable economy will demand change. I think the problem is thinking that all the change will be bad. Some things that will have to change: - More pubic transit on trains - Less packaging and throw away plastic utensils so you might have to carry a fork with you or employ more dishwashers at restaurants - Less meat and fish consumption, returning America to its more traditional diets modulo beyond meat type substitutes. - More local production and transport instead of shipping things across the world - Less non-essential work and the travel accompanying it - More urbanization to make ecological systems more efficient - Use of LED lighting systems - Less "fast fashion" and wearing more durable clothing - Use of electric heat wherever possible - Widespread battery production - Global solar network to ship sunlight power around the world - Emphasizing power efficiency in electronics Some of these changes are fairly disruptive, but extremely mild compared to the challenges humans have faced in history such as war and starvation. Keep in mind that these so-called "modern lifestyles" that are most carbon intensive are lived most vibrantly by the wealthy (e.g. private jets, endless consumption of materials). Many people will not be hugely inconvenienced compared to their current life circumstances.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  if you want humans to change you have to come up with better solutions not just ask people to change. It's never worked and it never will.