3 ms·

Active carbon removal and other geo-engineering actions are the inevitable path we'll have to go down. The only question from my viewpoint is how much we're goi

Active carbon removal and other geo-engineering actions are the inevitable path we'll have to go down. The only question from my viewpoint is how much we're going to suffer before we accept that.

lisper 5y ago
> how much we're going to suffer before we accept that And whether it will even be possible by then to remove enough carbon to make a difference. It's far from clear that it's even possible now. It took several hundred million years for nature to sequester all that carbon in the first place. It has taken us a mere 300 years to release it, but releasing carbon is one hell of a lot easier than sequestering it. And we're staring down the barrel of a blue ocean event in the next few decades, possibly even the next few years.
- specialist 5y ago
  I have to believe it's fixable within our lifetimes. Otherwise why get out of bed. We have multiple viable tools. Oviline, some kind of atmospheric dimming, rewilding, industrial carbon capture. And I'm sure we'll try 100s of other ideas and strategies. My current grumpiness is that we're not already dual track. Yes, we have to get humanity to carbon zero. Urgently. We also need to remove carbon. By whatever means possible. We just can't wait for carbon zero before we start carbon negative efforts. -- I haven't heard or seen any efforts about securing current carbon sinks. Like maybe replant the tundras with stuff that will delay the thawing. Or precapturing submerged methane and flaring it. Or...?
  - lisper 5y ago
    > I have to believe it's fixable within our lifetimes It might be technologically possible. But right now the limiting factor is people's complacency. Only a very tiny minority seems to be taking the problem as seriously as it should be taken. Everyone still seems to think that we're looking at the odd anomalous heat wave here and there, and that real catastrophe is still several generations away. It isn't. The first thing that needs to change is for everyone, and our political leaders in particular, to accept that. Because by the time it becomes obvious to everyone that we have been staring down the barrel of a gun for the last 300 years it really will be too late.
    - specialist 5y ago
      I hear you and I agree. What's the alternative? I volunteered for Audubon's Wetlands Conservation Network effort for a decade. Trying to save the wild salmon, maybe even restore some. I learned from them in the early 90s that it was already game over. (Confirmed at the time by my physicist cousin who pivoted his career to work on climate crisis.) I asked the biologists (my bosses) how they managed to persevere, knowing what they know. They answered that they just focus on the work, and try to enjoy life outside of work. So I came to think of it as Pascal's Wager for the survival of civilization, humanity itself, and very probably most of life. We probably won't survive. But why not try? Not telling you anything you don't know. Policy change happens very slowly, then all at once. So who knows? Maybe we'll out run the bear. If and when we pull our thumbs out, assuming I'm still here, I intend to help however I can. At the very least, working on something important would be nice. I've been reading your posts for a while now. I'm sure you'll help too. Peace.
      - lisper 5y ago
        > I learned in the early 90s that it was already game over Wow. Climate change wasn't even on most people's radar then.
germinalphrase 5y ago
It feels like a lot of environmentalists are reluctant to acknowledge this as it could further reduce the public will to act. Carbon removal/geo-engineering (if possible) are the silver bullet(s) allowing us to never break our bad habits.
- labster 5y ago
  Of course it sounds like it, but we really need to do all the things. We don’t need to take our foot off the accelerator pedal because we have brakes—it sounds really stupid that way.
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    No argument here. Particularly because it isn’t even clear that we can scale carbon removal.

Active carbon removal and other geo-engineering actions are the inevitable path we'll have to go down. The only question from my viewpoint is how much we're going to suffer before we accept that.

lisper 5y ago

> how much we're going to suffer before we accept that And whether it will even be possible by then to remove enough carbon to make a difference. It's far from clear that it's even possible now. It took several hundred million years for nature to sequester all that carbon in the first place. It has taken us a mere 300 years to release it, but releasing carbon is one hell of a lot easier than sequestering it. And we're staring down the barrel of a blue ocean event in the next few decades, possibly even the next few years.

specialist 5y ago
I have to believe it's fixable within our lifetimes. Otherwise why get out of bed. We have multiple viable tools. Oviline, some kind of atmospheric dimming, rewilding, industrial carbon capture. And I'm sure we'll try 100s of other ideas and strategies. My current grumpiness is that we're not already dual track. Yes, we have to get humanity to carbon zero. Urgently. We also need to remove carbon. By whatever means possible. We just can't wait for carbon zero before we start carbon negative efforts. -- I haven't heard or seen any efforts about securing current carbon sinks. Like maybe replant the tundras with stuff that will delay the thawing. Or precapturing submerged methane and flaring it. Or...?
- lisper 5y ago
  > I have to believe it's fixable within our lifetimes It might be technologically possible. But right now the limiting factor is people's complacency. Only a very tiny minority seems to be taking the problem as seriously as it should be taken. Everyone still seems to think that we're looking at the odd anomalous heat wave here and there, and that real catastrophe is still several generations away. It isn't. The first thing that needs to change is for everyone, and our political leaders in particular, to accept that. Because by the time it becomes obvious to everyone that we have been staring down the barrel of a gun for the last 300 years it really will be too late.
  - specialist 5y ago
    I hear you and I agree. What's the alternative? I volunteered for Audubon's Wetlands Conservation Network effort for a decade. Trying to save the wild salmon, maybe even restore some. I learned from them in the early 90s that it was already game over. (Confirmed at the time by my physicist cousin who pivoted his career to work on climate crisis.) I asked the biologists (my bosses) how they managed to persevere, knowing what they know. They answered that they just focus on the work, and try to enjoy life outside of work. So I came to think of it as Pascal's Wager for the survival of civilization, humanity itself, and very probably most of life. We probably won't survive. But why not try? Not telling you anything you don't know. Policy change happens very slowly, then all at once. So who knows? Maybe we'll out run the bear. If and when we pull our thumbs out, assuming I'm still here, I intend to help however I can. At the very least, working on something important would be nice. I've been reading your posts for a while now. I'm sure you'll help too. Peace.
    - lisper 5y ago
      > I learned in the early 90s that it was already game over Wow. Climate change wasn't even on most people's radar then.

germinalphrase 5y ago

It feels like a lot of environmentalists are reluctant to acknowledge this as it could further reduce the public will to act. Carbon removal/geo-engineering (if possible) are the silver bullet(s) allowing us to never break our bad habits.

labster 5y ago
Of course it sounds like it, but we really need to do all the things. We don’t need to take our foot off the accelerator pedal because we have brakes—it sounds really stupid that way.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  No argument here. Particularly because it isn’t even clear that we can scale carbon removal.