4 ms·

Sorry to burst your bubble but this optimism is just completely unfounded. Carbon removal is clearly a piece of the puzzle but if and only if we get to zero emi

Sorry to burst your bubble but this optimism is just completely unfounded. Carbon removal is clearly a piece of the puzzle but if and only if we get to zero emissions first. This is basic thermodynamics. It takes more energy to remove carbon than it did to put it in the air, so getting all of that carbon out will take, basically, some multiple of all of the energy output of every power plant, every mile driven, every building built, in the past 200 years. We basically have to "undo" the past 200 years of civilization a few times over. In no way does carbon removal make sense if we don't stop pushing that stuff in the air first. I'm glad Stripe is investing in it, and it makes perfect sense for them to do so and it's amazing of them, because we WILL need it, but only if the world doesn't end first. The world is like a guy with advanced cancer. He has let his cancer grow rampant for two decades and he's now infested. Doctors say he has a few years to live. He needs chemo and surgery NOW. Maybe, just maybe, with extreme luck and the most skilled doctors, he'll make it. Like cancer, emissions reproduce and grow and every minute counts (growing cancer → arctic methane emissions). Carbon removal is... his gym membership. Yeah, it will be great for him to get in shape in order to have a healthy and happy future...but the miserable bastard has to survive first.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
And we can't talk about people having less, or no babies here. I know HN's stance on overpopulation. Yea, industrialized societies supposedly need copious amounts of young people for the economic system to function, but how about just less young people until we find an answer? (I won't be back to debate. I'm not an expert on anything. It just seems like more people in the world add to the global warming problem, especially in industrialized countries.)
- elbasti 5y ago
  It just seems counterproductive. Like, as wildly unpopular as a $250 price per carbon ton would be, that would be orders of magnitude more palatable than a one child per couple policy.
- nine_k 5y ago
  The problem of overpopulation readily solves itself with urbanization, education, and emancipation of women. Everywhere in the world, no matter what culture and religion, the effect is visible. So this can be solved with political means, but not with prohibitions.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > especially in industrialized countries So those exact countries which had a declining fertility rate for ages now and, additionally, contain a rather small percentage of the world population? > I won't be back to debate I dislike this a lot, too be honest. Simply dropping a very divisive stance like this and then basically adding "but don't bother arguing" feels very disingenuous to me.
kossTKR 5y ago
I'm stealing those analogies. They're great in the context of techno-fixes. The exponentiality of the changes are hard to grasp, but people grasp cancer and that both luck, very skilled doctors, and future tech is needed to treat advanced stages.
graeme 5y ago
Oh sorry I left out half the argument. The other half is the rapidly progressing cost curve of solar. Ten years ago I thought that: * We wouldn’t be able to get renewae costs down fast enough * Even if we did, we’d have emitted so much that the earth’s own systems would keep things going unless we got to zero I didn’t see a realistic way out. Default dead, and almost certainly just dead. But since then the cost curve on renewables has come down much faster than predicted. And further we are starting to bring the cost curve down on carbon extraction. You’re right we need to get to zero. And I don’t mean to take that as a given. But I focussed on extraction because without that we’re still doomed even if we get to zero. But the progress so far has come despite an ineffectual political response and a general lack of urgency from civil society. But both are turning around a bit, with carbon taxes, the stripe initiative, etc. So I think we may be able to move even faster on the cost curves. Hence why I think we have moved from “basically no chance” to “some chance”. And that’s very optimistic to me, because humanity is pretty good at doing stuff if it focusses and success is actually possible rather than impossible. I think the more apt cancer analogy is surgery:chemo = emissions halting:carbon removal You need the first part, as you say. But without the second part you still die in the end.
me_me_me 5y ago
I think the more apt analogy is an obese person and calories-in, calories-out. It doesn't take just reducing calories input to daily needs (zero net carbon emmisions), they will stay obese and still at the risk of heart attack. They need to go below recommended calories to go into negative cal balance in order to loose weight. Zero net emmisions is a good start but its not enough as all it means is that we are maintaining status-quo ie warming up.
- graeme 5y ago
  Yes precisely. For a while it seemed we might get to zero but not have a good way to suck it out. Now we’re a solid “maybe” on both necessary planks of the plan.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

And we can't talk about people having less, or no babies here. I know HN's stance on overpopulation. Yea, industrialized societies supposedly need copious amounts of young people for the economic system to function, but how about just less young people until we find an answer? (I won't be back to debate. I'm not an expert on anything. It just seems like more people in the world add to the global warming problem, especially in industrialized countries.)

elbasti 5y ago
It just seems counterproductive. Like, as wildly unpopular as a $250 price per carbon ton would be, that would be orders of magnitude more palatable than a one child per couple policy.
nine_k 5y ago
The problem of overpopulation readily solves itself with urbanization, education, and emancipation of women. Everywhere in the world, no matter what culture and religion, the effect is visible. So this can be solved with political means, but not with prohibitions.
Sebb767 5y ago
> especially in industrialized countries So those exact countries which had a declining fertility rate for ages now and, additionally, contain a rather small percentage of the world population? > I won't be back to debate I dislike this a lot, too be honest. Simply dropping a very divisive stance like this and then basically adding "but don't bother arguing" feels very disingenuous to me.

kossTKR 5y ago

I'm stealing those analogies. They're great in the context of techno-fixes. The exponentiality of the changes are hard to grasp, but people grasp cancer and that both luck, very skilled doctors, and future tech is needed to treat advanced stages.

graeme 5y ago

Oh sorry I left out half the argument. The other half is the rapidly progressing cost curve of solar. Ten years ago I thought that: * We wouldn’t be able to get renewae costs down fast enough * Even if we did, we’d have emitted so much that the earth’s own systems would keep things going unless we got to zero I didn’t see a realistic way out. Default dead, and almost certainly just dead. But since then the cost curve on renewables has come down much faster than predicted. And further we are starting to bring the cost curve down on carbon extraction. You’re right we need to get to zero. And I don’t mean to take that as a given. But I focussed on extraction because without that we’re still doomed even if we get to zero. But the progress so far has come despite an ineffectual political response and a general lack of urgency from civil society. But both are turning around a bit, with carbon taxes, the stripe initiative, etc. So I think we may be able to move even faster on the cost curves. Hence why I think we have moved from “basically no chance” to “some chance”. And that’s very optimistic to me, because humanity is pretty good at doing stuff if it focusses and success is actually possible rather than impossible. I think the more apt cancer analogy is surgery:chemo = emissions halting:carbon removal You need the first part, as you say. But without the second part you still die in the end.

me_me_me 5y ago

I think the more apt analogy is an obese person and calories-in, calories-out. It doesn't take just reducing calories input to daily needs (zero net carbon emmisions), they will stay obese and still at the risk of heart attack. They need to go below recommended calories to go into negative cal balance in order to loose weight. Zero net emmisions is a good start but its not enough as all it means is that we are maintaining status-quo ie warming up.

graeme 5y ago
Yes precisely. For a while it seemed we might get to zero but not have a good way to suck it out. Now we’re a solid “maybe” on both necessary planks of the plan.