14 ms·

> Keeping global warming below 2°C is a pipe dream I think/hope it's possible by a war-mobilization type of effort, where industries start working together for

• flatline 6y ago
  If anything I think the global pandemic has shown how unprepared we are to come together globally and utilize technology to solve hard problems. Maybe something good will come from all of this in that direction and we will learn from our mistakes.
  • scsilver 6y ago
    Has Nature even been so forgiving?
    • drivebycomment 6y ago
      No. Life is a constant struggle against the encroaching entropy and I suspect keeping civilization going will never get easier. That said, coronavirus is not even close to being a threat to human civilization. Compare this to 1918 Spanish flu and the contrast can't be clearer. Despite enormous growth in human population and much higher connectivity, we are managing global death toll an order of magnitude lower. We absolutely can be much better but we can't ignore 100 years of progress either.
      • TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Yes, but we're stretching our global economies thin in the process. At this point in our civilizational development, it's the systems that are important. If this or a future pandemic pushes most economies past breaking point, the death toll will very quickly skyrocket from a mere million to a bit larger billions dying in wars and starvation.
      • defterGoose 6y ago
        That's a weird way to see it though. Historically some humans have struggled to acquire the basics of survival, but actually the planet we live on is a bastion of low entropy in a sea of chaos precisely because of "life". Better to go a little hungry and keto than be constantly choking on noxious fumes and fishing nothing but old boots and cans out of the ocean.
  • bparsons 6y ago
    Outside of the US and Brazil, I have been really impressed by the ability of people to come together and deal with a massive collective action problem. If anything, it has shown that people have the capacity to pull together when they need to.
    • dehrmann 6y ago
      > Outside of the US and Brazil Have you seen how things are looking in the UK, France, and Spain right now?
      • bjelkeman-again 6y ago
        Or India. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/india-is-in-denial-about-the-covid-19-crisis/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/india-is-in-denia...
        • dehrmann 6y ago
          I forgot about India. Its lockdown was thought through very poorly and made the spread worse.
          • mercer 6y ago
            To be fair, it's much more difficult to have an effective lockdown a country that has people tightly packed together and that isn't a WEIRD individualistic society.
      • collyw 6y ago
        Lots of cases here in Spain but hospitals are generally coping fine (with Madrid being a bit of an exception at present in that hospital numbers are rising as well, but are currently manageable).
  • ricksunny 6y ago
    >how unprepared we are to come together globally . . . to solve hard problems. Ain't that the truth.
• Aperocky 6y ago
  We can talk about scrubbing Carbon from the atmosphere once we have hydrogen fusion (read: infinite energy). Before that, it's just not feasible or possible in a human society.
  • dgellow 6y ago
    Don’t we already have close to infinite energy with nuclear fission? With almost zero impact on the atmosphere’s CO2.
    • Aperocky 6y ago
      We don't have infinite Uranium.
      • dgellow 6y ago
        Right, but I never heard of a risk of shortage. Though I may be out of the loop. Is it expected to be an issue in the future?
  • gspr 6y ago
    Would you like to share your numbers that made you reach that conclusion?
  • adrianN 6y ago
    There is a huge fusion reactor in the sky that we can use. It provides energy much cheaper than any fusion plants we can hope to build in the next fifty years.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • Aperocky 6y ago
      Space mirror is also a solution.
• gertlex 6y ago
  My covid takeaway is to be more certain than before that: > [a war-mobilization type of effort, where industries start working together for the goal] is a pipe dream. I'd love to be convinced otherwise. While technically possible, I'm wary of the social/economic/political aspects not being surmountable. (Edit: Your comment was edited while I pondered mine, and now includes mention of the social, etc. aspect :) )
  • marcusverus 6y ago
    What we need are bite-sized reforms that are palatable to people across the country. You're not going to sell middle America on a comprehensive multi-trillion dollar environmental package any time soon, but you could sell them a handful of "separate" $500B 'Manhattan Projects' to tackle some things now while you bring them around on the rest.
    • lotsofpulp 6y ago
      The only reform that would make any difference is one that would cause lower consumption of fossil fuels, i.e. a large tax on fossil fuels. It would especially negatively impact “middle America”, as it would cause prices for everything to rise, and hence they would be forced to consume less (which is the goal), and hence it wouldn’t be palatable. Anything short of forcing people to consume less now is pie in the sky thinking.
      • dwiel 6y ago
        Not necessarily. Tax carbon heavily and then redistribute the tax equally among all citizens. Anyone using above average carbon net pays into the system, anyone using below average gets a net payout. Then markets, our most advanced coordination/optimization method can be utilized to figure out how to reduce our carbon emissions.
        • multiplegeorges 6y ago
          Exactly right, almost all carbon tax proposals include a divident that is redistributed to people to offset the new charges. The majority of people end up getting more back than they are taxed. The problem is the perception problem at the gas pump or heating bill.
• moneytide 6y ago
  Sulfur dioxide from a supervolcano eruption would ironically not be considered a disaster if it were to reflect sunlight for a few years. Since we cannot arrange for a supervolcano yet, we could purposely emit sulfur from ships and existing smoke stacks. But wouldn't this cause acid rain eventually? Crops would receive less sun. Fictional remedy to fight solar-powered machines in "the Matrix" - global solar grids would have reduced input.
  • andi999 6y ago
    This sounds like the final episode of Dinosaurs (the muppet show). Last line was 'we cant get extinct we have been around for a 150 million years..'.
    • moneytide 6y ago
      Though most of their deaths were instantaneous (if it was large meteor) - the other half of the world would have been around for a few more seasons, before the food chain was rapidly squeezed (vaporized atmosphere from ground zero sloshing around pressure systems, sunlight inhibition from dust withering vegetation). This is why I think that, even facing the chaotic "sloshing" due to projected >8C temperature within a century referenced in parent, a civilization that has practiced/standardized/mass-produced greenhouses at a hectacre-scale could fare well despite the projected drought/storm/fire/sea-rise/permafrost-methane-feedback that is being suggested as consequence. The only "silver bullet" specialty that I know would be beneficial at any point in the future anyways (ability to grow large variety of food in barren areas with limited resources). Norway has large greenhouse production for higher latitude growth. Commercial sized greenhouse footprint to replace existing traditional outdoor grazing and staple crops would be enormous, which is why it may be more efficient to think of how to modify a biome instead of mass producing plastic/glass/steel enclosed micro climates (which may not be compatible with traditional tractors/combines/dusters which have long been mass produced).
• renewiltord 6y ago
  You will never do this easily. If I run a developing nation there is absolutely no way I accept that you, a developed nation with a century of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, will merely accept a reduction of your annual emissions. I will pump as much CO2 as necessary to raise my population into prosperity and until you have taken out enough GHG to match my historic emissions you're going to have to either take me with guns and bombs or you're going to have to pay me. You don't want to do the first because future millions of people are not worth the lives of present millions. And you're not going to do the latter because you can't afford it. You burnt too much to get here. So guess what? You're fucked. I'm not going to help you for free. It's like Europe giving Brazil shit over the Amazon. Buddy, you guys clear cut your forests. Your absolute forest cover doesn't matter. You've killed so many of your forests. Brazil has 60% forest cover. Germany has 30%. You cut your trees to build cities. And I can't? No, raze your cities or pay me for 400 years of treelessness.
  • TeMPOraL 6y ago
    It's absolutely true, but put this way, it lends an argument towards force-subjugating the entire planet under one government just to end the bickering about fairness. Global warming isn't fair. What I'd honestly want to see happening instead is developed nations doubling down on greentech, and donating all of that (+ expertise and IP) to developing nations, so that the latter can leapfrog the CO₂-intensive energy generation methods. After all, the developing nations aren't into greenhouse emissions for the sake of greenhouse emissions - they just want to have the same level of prosperity for their people as the West enjoys. So I say we should just give them the means to achieve that without burning fossil fuels, for free - and screw intellectual property and some perceived "fairness". This is a global problem, we're all in this together.
    • lotsofpulp 6y ago
      There is no “greentech” that mitigates the environmental damage of the luxury everyone wants, which is space. And no one with kids is going to voluntarily accept living in cramped apartments while other countries have individual houses on lots. Increased space per person => increased fossil fuel usage => increased emissions. Maybe the greatest “greentech” would be dissuading having kids, either culturally or economically.
• thepangolino 6y ago
  I’m pretty sure there’s studies showing we could drop global temperatures by about 2°C right now with cloud seeding at a cost of a couple billion USD a year.
• rtkwe 6y ago
  It's theoretically possible but the change is so drastic and required in so many countries I really don't see it happening. For instance in the US, even if the Democrats get full control, eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, and decide to pass something more extreme than the Green New Deal style legislation that's floating around at best that'll stick for 4 maybe 8 years at the outside.