4 ms·
It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matte
by hh3k0 6y ago
It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping points from which there may not be a return to the status quo.
- tarboreus 6y agoWe do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.
- maheart 6y agoThat's only part of the solution. Energy generation makes up ~25% of emissions, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, etc. make up the other 75%. All of these will increase as the 3rd world industrialises.
- hh3k0 6y ago> We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy. No, we do not. Nuclear energy is by no means emission-free. > There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0. -- Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/ https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-e...