4 ms·

No. We just cannot sustain panic continuously. I am confident that eventually a mix of decarbonization, mitigation of climate change effects, and some sort of g

No. We just cannot sustain panic continuously. I am confident that eventually a mix of decarbonization, mitigation of climate change effects, and some sort of geoengineering will avoid any apocalypse.

scarmig 5y ago
The point is that by all measures decarbonization isn't happening. Mitigations are a critical part of any solution, but expensive and hacky. And geoengineering is exactly the kind of radical new technology we might need, but the key point is that it doesn't exist right now and might not ever be practical.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  Decarbonization is happening/starting to happen - I actually see it taking off. It is an S-curve, though, so right now it looks tiny, but that will change.
  - moistly 5y ago
    Decarbonization needs to sequester it as fast—actually, much faster—than we’ve been taking it out. 75 million barrels per day. IMO that is not attainable.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  We need to turn the experience of daily life into something far worse than the most draconian COVID lockdowns to even put a dent in this problem. Forever.
  - junon 5y ago
    This is my viewpoint as well. People are all talk about "should be doing" but when it comes down to "alright, you're going to have to sacrifice some comfort" all action ceases.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      I don't think this is so much people, as corporations and the politicians they own. Even economic stagnation is seen as abhorrent, when in fact we will have to undergo economic shrinkage to even contain the problem. The entire world economy will have to start shrinking for a few decades while we replace all fossil fuels with other things, and then we can try to get back to growth. But this is absolutely not acceptable in any mainstream economic discussion, even from the left, and absolutely counter to the very definition of a for-profit corporation. Even slowing down growth is seen as 'too risky', while the world burns. Better we buy new iPhones every month to help propel the economy.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    Well... you and I will, anyway. It won't apply to politicians.
- margalabargala 5y ago
  Not saying it's a good idea, but geoengineering is currently both technically and economically feasible. It would be easy for e.g. the United States to reduce the total incoming sunlight by enough to counteract global warming. The issue is that doing so will have widespread unknown issues on the planet. For example- launching enough thin, reflective mylar film to the Earth-Sun L1 Lagrange point to reduce incoming solar radiation by ~0.1% would take about 500 Falcon Heavy launches (highest capacity rocket currently available). This would take several years and around $100 billion. Once Starship is ready and in use, this would go way down. $100 billion and several years is practically nothing for the US, China, or one of several other countries with the capability to do this. Obvious downsides include denying the use of the L1 Lagrange point to human use permanently, eventual degradation of the sun shield as solar wind pushes pieces of film out of place, and of course possible mass famine and plant die-off due to lower solar radiation.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Check it. Teller, E., Wood, L., & Hyde, R. (1996). Global warming and ice ages: I. Prospects for physics-based modulation of global change (No. UCRL-JC--128715). Lawrence Livermore National Lab..
silisili 5y ago
Agreed, but I quit saying as much, as often here you are met with disdain for saying such things, and that you are creating distractions. TBF I do see both sides - by saying 'ah we'll figure it out' it makes it seem like it's not a huge issue(it is). But I do think we will figure it out, even if it means vaporizing the sky to block the sun while carbon increases.

scarmig 5y ago

The point is that by all measures decarbonization isn't happening. Mitigations are a critical part of any solution, but expensive and hacky. And geoengineering is exactly the kind of radical new technology we might need, but the key point is that it doesn't exist right now and might not ever be practical.

RandomLensman 5y ago
Decarbonization is happening/starting to happen - I actually see it taking off. It is an S-curve, though, so right now it looks tiny, but that will change.
- moistly 5y ago
  Decarbonization needs to sequester it as fast—actually, much faster—than we’ve been taking it out. 75 million barrels per day. IMO that is not attainable.
nsxwolf 5y ago
We need to turn the experience of daily life into something far worse than the most draconian COVID lockdowns to even put a dent in this problem. Forever.
- junon 5y ago
  This is my viewpoint as well. People are all talk about "should be doing" but when it comes down to "alright, you're going to have to sacrifice some comfort" all action ceases.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    I don't think this is so much people, as corporations and the politicians they own. Even economic stagnation is seen as abhorrent, when in fact we will have to undergo economic shrinkage to even contain the problem. The entire world economy will have to start shrinking for a few decades while we replace all fossil fuels with other things, and then we can try to get back to growth. But this is absolutely not acceptable in any mainstream economic discussion, even from the left, and absolutely counter to the very definition of a for-profit corporation. Even slowing down growth is seen as 'too risky', while the world burns. Better we buy new iPhones every month to help propel the economy.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  Well... you and I will, anyway. It won't apply to politicians.
margalabargala 5y ago
Not saying it's a good idea, but geoengineering is currently both technically and economically feasible. It would be easy for e.g. the United States to reduce the total incoming sunlight by enough to counteract global warming. The issue is that doing so will have widespread unknown issues on the planet. For example- launching enough thin, reflective mylar film to the Earth-Sun L1 Lagrange point to reduce incoming solar radiation by ~0.1% would take about 500 Falcon Heavy launches (highest capacity rocket currently available). This would take several years and around $100 billion. Once Starship is ready and in use, this would go way down. $100 billion and several years is practically nothing for the US, China, or one of several other countries with the capability to do this. Obvious downsides include denying the use of the L1 Lagrange point to human use permanently, eventual degradation of the sun shield as solar wind pushes pieces of film out of place, and of course possible mass famine and plant die-off due to lower solar radiation.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Check it. Teller, E., Wood, L., & Hyde, R. (1996). Global warming and ice ages: I. Prospects for physics-based modulation of global change (No. UCRL-JC--128715). Lawrence Livermore National Lab..

silisili 5y ago

Agreed, but I quit saying as much, as often here you are met with disdain for saying such things, and that you are creating distractions. TBF I do see both sides - by saying 'ah we'll figure it out' it makes it seem like it's not a huge issue(it is). But I do think we will figure it out, even if it means vaporizing the sky to block the sun while carbon increases.