6 ms·

This is why the solution is (and always has been): 1. Electrify everything. 2. Lots of nuclear (fission), with fusion sooner rather than later. 3. Carbon cap

This is why the solution is (and always has been): 1. Electrify everything. 2. Lots of nuclear (fission), with fusion sooner rather than later. 3. Carbon capture.

ehsankia 6y ago
> always been Well, not quite. If we had started back when climate change became clear mid-20th century, #3 wouldn't have been needed. But now, it is indeed the only option, and it will be very expensive. And the more we delay, the more expensive it'll become. We are basically screwing over future generations who will have to pay our debts.
- fastball 6y ago
  Eh, carbon capture has always been a good idea to develop. Some things just make the most sense releasing greenhouse gases and will for the foreseeable future, e.g. CH4-powered rockets or CO2 released from cement. Will never be a problem if we're capturing as much as we emit.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Carbon capture works at a point site. Put your machine there and you get a nice concentration of CO2. Once it's in the atmosphere you are basically just building a more efficient tree. Any machines you build will have to be as large as forests. Who is going to pay for that? By definition this would be keynesian gold digging. Pay people to do something that has very little economic benefits for the individual doing it and it's not in competition with any other private industry. It's basically an extreme example of a luxury.
agumonkey 6y ago
technological path stay behind political doors.. we need leaders
- gnulinux 6y ago
  The leader of the free world last 4 years has been a proud climate change denier. We need action yesterday, but for action we need leaders, but our leaders are not willing to do anything. This seems like an unsolvable problem to me. People who have the most power to reduce carbon emission are the same people who are least eager to do so.
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    When I mean leader I mean leader. 45th potus is not. He's just a guy in power, a systemic incident if you will, but he has no understanding of what populations need. A leader has that.
kumarvvr 6y ago
I really hope we have much larger research into energy storage that is sustainable and environment friendly. The future of energy is in storage. Sometime in the future, coal and oil will run out. We, as a society, have to develop sustainable means of generating energy.
- asdff 6y ago
  We have sustainable means of generating energy already developed. We only need to develop the political will.
  - posix_me_less 6y ago
    Based on current events nothing makes political will like fear for life. I think society probably needs to experience climate change disasters to really do something about it.
    - asdff 6y ago
      We are already experiencing climate change disasters around the world and doing nothing. How long do we have to wait, until crops fail and the rich are starving?
      - posix_me_less 6y ago
        Well some people are doing something, even though so far it is ineffective. I think it is a spectrum. The worse life gets or the more fearing the people get, the more motivated they will be. It seems we are not there yet. Maybe next generation or the generation after that, 30-60 years. But maybe the change will be slow and continuous and people who can will just adapt.
orwin 6y ago
4. Consumme less, 5. Let the economy stall, it will at some point anyway.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I suspect you're going to get downvoted to hell, but you're right. And, the fact is, neither of these points are compatible with capitalism. There's also a point 6, which is reduce and then stabilize the global population at sustainable levels. Having fewer humans around is simply the easiest way to consume less while allowing a reasonable standard of living.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    Stuff including transportation resisted is but 15% of energy, and carbon footprint, max.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      I don't understand.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Nope, wrong mentality. Humans are by nature pro-growth. Any policy which works against that needs to account for it, which they never do. Also populations stabilize when you reach a certain standard of living, which is exactly why the environmental mentality should be pro-growth – get to that point as soon as possible, and use that extra manpower to get to carbon neutral as soon as possible with the three things I listed. You don't need 4, 5, and 6. Simpler plans are always better.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      No, capitalism is the problem. You can't fix capitalism with more capitalism. Growth at all costs is what is killing us. Populations don't stabilize due to growth. They stabilize when the standard of living reaches a point where having many children stops making sense. If only there was a way we could share our prosperity with everyone.... hmm. Is that called capitalism? Why, no, it is not. We're not a virus on the Earth; we're cancer. Cancer only kills people if it grows too fast. For example, many men die with prostate cancer, while relatively few die of it.
dehrmann 6y ago
1 is actually optional if you have 2 and 3 working well, meaning we can keep using hydrocarbon fuels in our cars if we have enough carbon-free energy to capture the carbon and synthesize hydrocarbons. Electric cars seem to be viable, so it's really only interesting for planes right now.
- adrianN 6y ago
  But "enough" energy is something like 5-10 times the energy needed if we just electrified things.
TearsInTheRain 6y ago
> 3. Carbon capture Algae capturing carbon and falling to the bottom of the ocean seems so obvious and so easy and scalable!
- jmiskovic 6y ago
  To me it sounds neither easy or obvious. Is there any FAQ to learn more about the concept? Some questions I have: How would introduced algae affect various oceanic biomes? What happens to captured carbon in short term and in long term? Would pH change? How can the speed and spreading of process be controlled?
LatteLazy 6y ago
It's too late for nuclear. The 20 years it would take to build those plants are 20 years we don't have.
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  Too late for some unrealistic short-term fights which probably are lost but the fight does not end. We will still need to decrease atmospheric pollution in 2040.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    No, by 2040 Well need flood defences and water treatment plants (for the droughts)...
    - posix_me_less 6y ago
      That too, but atmosphere will still need fixing.
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        I don't think anyone will have much budget left between the adaptation measures and the wars over water. Right now, people can afford to spend national budgets paying for global benefits (co2 reduction). When things get difficult, those programs will be the first to go...
        posix_me_less 6y ago
        Good point. I think it can go both ways. Either society disintegrates and any hopes for grandious climate fix projects will be gone, those left will try to adapt; or with some luck during the next decades enough people in power will act soon enough to at least start fixing the problem. Some forerunner disasters and fear can help there.
- fastball 6y ago

This is why the solution is (and always has been): 1. Electrify everything. 2. Lots of nuclear (fission), with fusion sooner rather than later. 3. Carbon capture.

ehsankia 6y ago

> always been Well, not quite. If we had started back when climate change became clear mid-20th century, #3 wouldn't have been needed. But now, it is indeed the only option, and it will be very expensive. And the more we delay, the more expensive it'll become. We are basically screwing over future generations who will have to pay our debts.

fastball 6y ago
Eh, carbon capture has always been a good idea to develop. Some things just make the most sense releasing greenhouse gases and will for the foreseeable future, e.g. CH4-powered rockets or CO2 released from cement. Will never be a problem if we're capturing as much as we emit.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Carbon capture works at a point site. Put your machine there and you get a nice concentration of CO2. Once it's in the atmosphere you are basically just building a more efficient tree. Any machines you build will have to be as large as forests. Who is going to pay for that? By definition this would be keynesian gold digging. Pay people to do something that has very little economic benefits for the individual doing it and it's not in competition with any other private industry. It's basically an extreme example of a luxury.

agumonkey 6y ago

technological path stay behind political doors.. we need leaders

gnulinux 6y ago
The leader of the free world last 4 years has been a proud climate change denier. We need action yesterday, but for action we need leaders, but our leaders are not willing to do anything. This seems like an unsolvable problem to me. People who have the most power to reduce carbon emission are the same people who are least eager to do so.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  When I mean leader I mean leader. 45th potus is not. He's just a guy in power, a systemic incident if you will, but he has no understanding of what populations need. A leader has that.

kumarvvr 6y ago

I really hope we have much larger research into energy storage that is sustainable and environment friendly. The future of energy is in storage. Sometime in the future, coal and oil will run out. We, as a society, have to develop sustainable means of generating energy.

asdff 6y ago
We have sustainable means of generating energy already developed. We only need to develop the political will.
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  Based on current events nothing makes political will like fear for life. I think society probably needs to experience climate change disasters to really do something about it.
  - asdff 6y ago
    We are already experiencing climate change disasters around the world and doing nothing. How long do we have to wait, until crops fail and the rich are starving?
    - posix_me_less 6y ago
      Well some people are doing something, even though so far it is ineffective. I think it is a spectrum. The worse life gets or the more fearing the people get, the more motivated they will be. It seems we are not there yet. Maybe next generation or the generation after that, 30-60 years. But maybe the change will be slow and continuous and people who can will just adapt.

orwin 6y ago

4. Consumme less, 5. Let the economy stall, it will at some point anyway.

pmiller2 6y ago
I suspect you're going to get downvoted to hell, but you're right. And, the fact is, neither of these points are compatible with capitalism. There's also a point 6, which is reduce and then stabilize the global population at sustainable levels. Having fewer humans around is simply the easiest way to consume less while allowing a reasonable standard of living.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Stuff including transportation resisted is but 15% of energy, and carbon footprint, max.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    I don't understand.
- fastball 6y ago
  Nope, wrong mentality. Humans are by nature pro-growth. Any policy which works against that needs to account for it, which they never do. Also populations stabilize when you reach a certain standard of living, which is exactly why the environmental mentality should be pro-growth – get to that point as soon as possible, and use that extra manpower to get to carbon neutral as soon as possible with the three things I listed. You don't need 4, 5, and 6. Simpler plans are always better.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    No, capitalism is the problem. You can't fix capitalism with more capitalism. Growth at all costs is what is killing us. Populations don't stabilize due to growth. They stabilize when the standard of living reaches a point where having many children stops making sense. If only there was a way we could share our prosperity with everyone.... hmm. Is that called capitalism? Why, no, it is not. We're not a virus on the Earth; we're cancer. Cancer only kills people if it grows too fast. For example, many men die with prostate cancer, while relatively few die of it.

dehrmann 6y ago

1 is actually optional if you have 2 and 3 working well, meaning we can keep using hydrocarbon fuels in our cars if we have enough carbon-free energy to capture the carbon and synthesize hydrocarbons. Electric cars seem to be viable, so it's really only interesting for planes right now.

adrianN 6y ago
But "enough" energy is something like 5-10 times the energy needed if we just electrified things.

TearsInTheRain 6y ago

> 3. Carbon capture Algae capturing carbon and falling to the bottom of the ocean seems so obvious and so easy and scalable!

jmiskovic 6y ago
To me it sounds neither easy or obvious. Is there any FAQ to learn more about the concept? Some questions I have: How would introduced algae affect various oceanic biomes? What happens to captured carbon in short term and in long term? Would pH change? How can the speed and spreading of process be controlled?

LatteLazy 6y ago

It's too late for nuclear. The 20 years it would take to build those plants are 20 years we don't have.

posix_me_less 6y ago
Too late for some unrealistic short-term fights which probably are lost but the fight does not end. We will still need to decrease atmospheric pollution in 2040.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  No, by 2040 Well need flood defences and water treatment plants (for the droughts)...
  - posix_me_less 6y ago
    That too, but atmosphere will still need fixing.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I don't think anyone will have much budget left between the adaptation measures and the wars over water. Right now, people can afford to spend national budgets paying for global benefits (co2 reduction). When things get difficult, those programs will be the first to go...
      - posix_me_less 6y ago
        Good point. I think it can go both ways. Either society disintegrates and any hopes for grandious climate fix projects will be gone, those left will try to adapt; or with some luck during the next decades enough people in power will act soon enough to at least start fixing the problem. Some forerunner disasters and fear can help there.
fastball 6y ago