4 ms·

There is no silver bullet. It has to be a combination of: 1) Reduce emissions to zero (will take some time). 2) Use more natural solutions (trees, algae, kelp

There is no silver bullet. It has to be a combination of: 1) Reduce emissions to zero (will take some time). 2) Use more natural solutions (trees, algae, kelp etc. - will also take time). 3) Enhance natural solutions with tech (enhanced weathering). 4) Develop carbon capture tech to reverse the damage done by the fossil-fuel burning tech.

blacksmith_tb 5y ago
Presumably entrants will skew towards #4 as we don't have as many solutions there, and depending on how quickly you could scale up a good one, it would be quicker than 1-3, you'd expect.
wyager 5y ago
Why do we have to reduce emissions to zero? I prefer freeing up carbon from the ground as long as it’s not causing greenhouse heating.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Well, it is causing greenhouse heating, that's the whole point, any freeing up carbon is inherently linked to that. But it is more appropriate to say that we have to reduce net emissions to zero; there would be no problem with emissions if there's a compensating carbon capture of equal amount. At least after we've "paid back the debt" by recapturing the excess emissions of earlier decades - there needs to be some period of negative net emissions before zero net emissions would be okay. Why do you prefer "freeing up carbon from the ground" ? Usually that's just a sideeffect that happens only because we want some other thing e.g. extract energy from oil or manufacture cement by calcinating limestone; and if we want a stable atmosphere then we can't be freeing up carbon from the ground without putting it back.
vkou 5y ago
> 1) Reduce emissions to zero (will take some time). How many centuries is it going to take to reduce global emissions to... Half of their current levels?
- kisamoto 5y ago
  Hopefully one century or less? But this depends on global willingness to do so by choosing (more expensive) sustainable products and voting for politicians who want to enforce/encourage carbon reductions
  - vkou 5y ago
    1. Is there any reason at all to believe that billions of people will change their minds and make both of them happen in a century or less? The New Soviet Man was an experiment only 70 years in the making, and it was in no way a successful one. 2. Let's suppose that actually happens. Let's suppose we get to 50% of current emissions in... 50 years. We currently increase CO2 concentrations by 2.5 ppm/year. This would put us at over 500 PPM in my expected lifetime... In one of the more optimistic interpretations of your predictions. For bonus points, even if we hit 50% reduction in 50 years, that would way overachieve what the Paris Accord set out. We are currently not on track to hit any of the targets in the Paris Accord.

blacksmith_tb 5y ago

Presumably entrants will skew towards #4 as we don't have as many solutions there, and depending on how quickly you could scale up a good one, it would be quicker than 1-3, you'd expect.

wyager 5y ago

Why do we have to reduce emissions to zero? I prefer freeing up carbon from the ground as long as it’s not causing greenhouse heating.

PeterisP 5y ago
Well, it is causing greenhouse heating, that's the whole point, any freeing up carbon is inherently linked to that. But it is more appropriate to say that we have to reduce net emissions to zero; there would be no problem with emissions if there's a compensating carbon capture of equal amount. At least after we've "paid back the debt" by recapturing the excess emissions of earlier decades - there needs to be some period of negative net emissions before zero net emissions would be okay. Why do you prefer "freeing up carbon from the ground" ? Usually that's just a sideeffect that happens only because we want some other thing e.g. extract energy from oil or manufacture cement by calcinating limestone; and if we want a stable atmosphere then we can't be freeing up carbon from the ground without putting it back.

vkou 5y ago

> 1) Reduce emissions to zero (will take some time). How many centuries is it going to take to reduce global emissions to... Half of their current levels?

kisamoto 5y ago
Hopefully one century or less? But this depends on global willingness to do so by choosing (more expensive) sustainable products and voting for politicians who want to enforce/encourage carbon reductions
- vkou 5y ago
  1. Is there any reason at all to believe that billions of people will change their minds and make both of them happen in a century or less? The New Soviet Man was an experiment only 70 years in the making, and it was in no way a successful one. 2. Let's suppose that actually happens. Let's suppose we get to 50% of current emissions in... 50 years. We currently increase CO2 concentrations by 2.5 ppm/year. This would put us at over 500 PPM in my expected lifetime... In one of the more optimistic interpretations of your predictions. For bonus points, even if we hit 50% reduction in 50 years, that would way overachieve what the Paris Accord set out. We are currently not on track to hit any of the targets in the Paris Accord.