3 ms·

The best strategy is to use stratospheric aerosol injections to stabilize temperatures over the next 50-100 years until carbon capture is ready to scale. The p

The best strategy is to use stratospheric aerosol injections to stabilize temperatures over the next 50-100 years until carbon capture is ready to scale. The problem with carbon capture is the high energy cost. So you need a source of cheap, abundant energy. Obviously the energy source itself can’t emit carbon. That most likely looks like fusion when we finally crack it circa 2100. Until stratospheric aerosols are highly effective, dirt cheap and require very little energy. We absolutely know they work from historical volcano events. The only downside is they need to be constantly refreshed every year because they dissipate over time. So they’re a medium-term, not a long-term solution. But that buys us enough time to really get carbon capture right.

JulianMorrison 5y ago
Temperatures aren't the only problem. So is ocean acidification, and that depends directly on carbon dioxide.
techdragon 5y ago
The issue is they are a massive global project that requires the same sorts of measurement ambiguity that lets people argue over anthropogenic climate change in the first place. I’m not going to argue the physics, because you’re right about it being a good strategy for all the reasons you mentioned… but unfortunately this is a worse is better scenario. Direct methods that produce measurable byproducts that can be used to directly quantify how much CO2 has been removed, are macroeconomically speaking, going to be easier to find backers for both financially and politically. Without those backers nothing will happen with any large scale climate change mitigation efforts.
11235813213455 5y ago
The best strategy is to place environment at the top priority, to breakdown capitalism and the frenesy for consumption, money, products. It's not idealism/utopism, I've been living since 10 years somewhat far from the modern lifestyle (except my laptop), I use a bike, and eat local fruits and legumes, or markets vegetables left/wasted at the end, I go to supermarket once or twice a year to buy soap bars and rice/quinoa, that's all. This guy is also a good inspiration https://www.robgreenfield.org/ https://www.robgreenfield.org/. It takes time, but it's easy to do the switch, governments/countries need to stop behaving like financial companies, we need to have public fruit trees and on the other side reduce the useless services and jobs (luxury, tourism, ..), remove intermediates, promote local food (avoid industrial collecting non-ripe fruits, and wasting ripe ones, ..), so many simple, logical things. Just reducing the use of cars will make people change their lifestyle for the better (both them and environment) That is I think the solution, not a rocket science solution that tries to find yet another industrial way to depollute one of pollutants (and probably worsen the case for others and the overall balance), just a natural solution. As soon as people have a environment footprint much lower, like mine, it's like the total population is divided by 2 or more
- corty 5y ago
  Well, that is basically the "back to the stone age" strategy. While I applaud your efforts, I don't think that this would gain any traction in a sufficient part of the population.
  - 11235813213455 5y ago
    We take the good parts of the past (food, green transports), and the best parts of our era (e.g. internet). As soon as we educate young people, and politics help with the urge of global heating, it'll gain traction
    - corty 5y ago
      If you have to wait for old people to die off and young people to take over, you are looking at a timeline of at least one generation, maybe two. So 30 to 60 years. Climate change temperature goals of 1.5 or 2 degrees are unattainable if things take even 30 years. So this is not a viable option.

JulianMorrison 5y ago

Temperatures aren't the only problem. So is ocean acidification, and that depends directly on carbon dioxide.

techdragon 5y ago

The issue is they are a massive global project that requires the same sorts of measurement ambiguity that lets people argue over anthropogenic climate change in the first place. I’m not going to argue the physics, because you’re right about it being a good strategy for all the reasons you mentioned… but unfortunately this is a worse is better scenario. Direct methods that produce measurable byproducts that can be used to directly quantify how much CO2 has been removed, are macroeconomically speaking, going to be easier to find backers for both financially and politically. Without those backers nothing will happen with any large scale climate change mitigation efforts.

11235813213455 5y ago

The best strategy is to place environment at the top priority, to breakdown capitalism and the frenesy for consumption, money, products. It's not idealism/utopism, I've been living since 10 years somewhat far from the modern lifestyle (except my laptop), I use a bike, and eat local fruits and legumes, or markets vegetables left/wasted at the end, I go to supermarket once or twice a year to buy soap bars and rice/quinoa, that's all. This guy is also a good inspiration https://www.robgreenfield.org/ https://www.robgreenfield.org/. It takes time, but it's easy to do the switch, governments/countries need to stop behaving like financial companies, we need to have public fruit trees and on the other side reduce the useless services and jobs (luxury, tourism, ..), remove intermediates, promote local food (avoid industrial collecting non-ripe fruits, and wasting ripe ones, ..), so many simple, logical things. Just reducing the use of cars will make people change their lifestyle for the better (both them and environment) That is I think the solution, not a rocket science solution that tries to find yet another industrial way to depollute one of pollutants (and probably worsen the case for others and the overall balance), just a natural solution. As soon as people have a environment footprint much lower, like mine, it's like the total population is divided by 2 or more

corty 5y ago
Well, that is basically the "back to the stone age" strategy. While I applaud your efforts, I don't think that this would gain any traction in a sufficient part of the population.
- 11235813213455 5y ago
  We take the good parts of the past (food, green transports), and the best parts of our era (e.g. internet). As soon as we educate young people, and politics help with the urge of global heating, it'll gain traction
  - corty 5y ago
    If you have to wait for old people to die off and young people to take over, you are looking at a timeline of at least one generation, maybe two. So 30 to 60 years. Climate change temperature goals of 1.5 or 2 degrees are unattainable if things take even 30 years. So this is not a viable option.