4 ms·

Step 1: Stop burning fossil fuels.

by jandrese 5y ago

fareesh 5y ago
i.e. stop the backbone of everything in the world with no practical replacement. Probably not the best step 1
- jacquesm 5y ago
  But even so it might be better than the alternative in the longer term.
  - lovecg 5y ago
    Better for whom? Burning fossil fuels literally lifted billions out of poverty, what you’re proposing if not done carefully will quickly reverse that.
- adrianN 5y ago
  There are practical replacements. Switching to them is expensive.
- jandrese 5y ago
  Step 2 is sequester the excess carbon out of the atmosphere. There is no step 3.
chmod600 5y ago
If there were consensus on something so simple, it would already be done. I think what you mean is that there's consensus on "Everyone else stop burning fossil fuels, and I'll get around to it as soon as it's convenient for me. By the way, no nuclear, it's scary. And make sure to keep my AC running, it gets stuffy here. And my current car needs gas, so buy me a Tesla instead. And my jet rides around the world don't count, because travel is a culturally enriching experience so it's exempt."
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  It’s simple, the implications are complicated. The focus on individual choices is flawed because industrial processes and infrastructure emit the most GHGs. Regardless, there’s no laws of nature that say you shall burn fossil fuel to transport and cool your self. The issue is that if the machines that produce carbon were to be replaced with machines that do not emit, many institutions would find themselves with stranded assets that required large capital investments.
goatlover 5y ago
Step 1 is figuring out how to meet the world's growing energy demands while reducing fossil fuel usage in the near future. Just stopping isn't a solution, because the world continues to need more energy. Investing in more clean energy, storage and new nuclear power plants along with carbon capture and other C02 mitigation strategies are a good first step.
- bambax 5y ago
  The way you (as well as most people) frame this, means there is no solution. If the world can't refrain from using more and more energy, then the world is doomed. If we want to slow down global warming, we need to stop burning fossil fuel right now. Hoping for a technical breakthrough of infinite "free" energy that would not only allow us to consume more, but also to do efficient carbon capture, is magical thinking. It may happen! But it most probably won't, and we should be preparing for when it doesn't. The fact that we don't, and we keep waiting for a miracle that would be just around the corner, is pathetic.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    80% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels, so we can't just stop, or civilization comes to a halt and people starve and riot. There's 7.8 billion of us now. That energy has to first be replaced by wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, electric transportation, etc.

Step 1: Stop burning fossil fuels.

fareesh 5y ago

i.e. stop the backbone of everything in the world with no practical replacement. Probably not the best step 1

jacquesm 5y ago
But even so it might be better than the alternative in the longer term.
- lovecg 5y ago
  Better for whom? Burning fossil fuels literally lifted billions out of poverty, what you’re proposing if not done carefully will quickly reverse that.
adrianN 5y ago
There are practical replacements. Switching to them is expensive.
jandrese 5y ago
Step 2 is sequester the excess carbon out of the atmosphere. There is no step 3.

chmod600 5y ago

If there were consensus on something so simple, it would already be done. I think what you mean is that there's consensus on "Everyone else stop burning fossil fuels, and I'll get around to it as soon as it's convenient for me. By the way, no nuclear, it's scary. And make sure to keep my AC running, it gets stuffy here. And my current car needs gas, so buy me a Tesla instead. And my jet rides around the world don't count, because travel is a culturally enriching experience so it's exempt."

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
It’s simple, the implications are complicated. The focus on individual choices is flawed because industrial processes and infrastructure emit the most GHGs. Regardless, there’s no laws of nature that say you shall burn fossil fuel to transport and cool your self. The issue is that if the machines that produce carbon were to be replaced with machines that do not emit, many institutions would find themselves with stranded assets that required large capital investments.

goatlover 5y ago

Step 1 is figuring out how to meet the world's growing energy demands while reducing fossil fuel usage in the near future. Just stopping isn't a solution, because the world continues to need more energy. Investing in more clean energy, storage and new nuclear power plants along with carbon capture and other C02 mitigation strategies are a good first step.

bambax 5y ago
The way you (as well as most people) frame this, means there is no solution. If the world can't refrain from using more and more energy, then the world is doomed. If we want to slow down global warming, we need to stop burning fossil fuel right now. Hoping for a technical breakthrough of infinite "free" energy that would not only allow us to consume more, but also to do efficient carbon capture, is magical thinking. It may happen! But it most probably won't, and we should be preparing for when it doesn't. The fact that we don't, and we keep waiting for a miracle that would be just around the corner, is pathetic.
- goatlover 5y ago
  80% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels, so we can't just stop, or civilization comes to a halt and people starve and riot. There's 7.8 billion of us now. That energy has to first be replaced by wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, electric transportation, etc.