16 ms·
No one thing will solve this problem by itself. Just like one workout won't make you fit. It's not that kind of problem.
by BurningFrog 5y ago
No one thing will solve this problem by itself.
Just like one workout won't make you fit.
It's not that kind of problem.
- silisili 5y agoIf you haven't noticed, most Americans aren't fit...and this is IMO precisely the reason why. The world of instant gratification has ruined our abilities to see and think long term.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoMost americans aren't fit because nutritious food is expensive and more time consuming than sugar food.
- sporc 5y agoTime consuming, yes. More expensive, no. People with long term perspective are willing to take the time to provide healthful meals for themselves.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoObesity is strongly correlated with poverty. Don't go mistaking weight as a function of work ethic or long term perspective. Many people both do not have enough to eat and are obese.
- Retric 5y agoIt’s one thing to say every little bit helps, but when your talking about something that’s never going to offset even 1% of current CO2 output it’s reasonable to suggest focusing on more effective solutions. Especially when actually mining transporting and distributing the material is going to release significant CO2.
- sieabahlpark 5y agoThe part no one considers is the output CO2 to achieve the reduction. It's just a constant flux of armchair scientists from Reddit.
- lugged 5y agoWe have almost 8 billion people on the planet, we absolutely need to "focus" on every possible solution that may work. There are currently over 100 proposed solutions that do actually add up to more than enough sequestration but the conversation needs to change and the disparaging whataboutism needs to end. If people get apathetic or nihilism sets in nobody will be able to make the changes required.
- orhmeh09 5y agoWhat does whataboutism mean here?
- kingkawn 5y agoA convenient way to dismiss valid counter-critiques
- holomorphically 5y agoI'm curious to know what those solutions are that will add up to 51 gigatons of CO2 sequestration a year.
- akomtu 5y agoBusywork is as useful as doing nothing.
- Retric 5y agoYou can’t use every approach as iron seeding and this both do the same thing and the oceans are finite. So this isn’t a 1% solution, it’s not even a 0.1% soliton it might be a 0.01% solution. “50,000 tonnes of tephra – a bulk carrier vessel’s worth – offshore could sequester 2750 tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This, they said, equates to a cost of around £43 per tonne of carbon dioxide sequestered” assuming absolutely zero CO2 was released in the process. Bulk carriers are quite efficient and could move 50,000 tons ~= 0.4 tons of CO2 per mile in a straight line. Which sounds fine except you can’t simply dump all 50,000 tons 1 mile off shore and expect anything useful to happen. If you can dump on average 50 tons per mile you just released ~400 tons to sequester 2750. And that’s assuming it somehow gets loaded and unloaded without releasing any extra CO2.
- lwouis 5y agoWe need to discuss effective solutions like consuming less (e.g. stopping fast fashion habits, stopping the cars-becoming-bigger trends, not moving to 5G, etc). These "scientisticians are going to fix it (while we gorge)" headlines are bad because they contribute to the public opinion that business-as-usual is ok and will lead to a good outcome. It will not, and we are headed for a dreadful climate so far. This is often called green-washing
- martimarkov 5y agoWhy is 5G bad, I honestly don’t know?
- etrautmann 5y agoIn this context, perhaps higher power consumption (owen side) relative to 4G?
- soco 5y agoPower consumption of 5G is about 20x lower than 3G and getting lower as we speak (there are many 5G technologies only gradually getting adopted). So probably he meant the planned obsolescence mentioned already above.
- lwouis 5y agoAny time we increase efficiency, we also increase consumption. 5G increases efficiency, it's true. Now people consume more. It's enables new usages which people will jump on. This happens in History every time we improve efficiency. Cars now consume a fraction of what early cars did, yet we use these efficiency gains to stuff them with gadgets, and make them bigger, and overall they still consume more than they used now in absolute terms. In other words the engine inside your modern car is more fuel efficient than the first Ford, but we now make SUV that consume way more to produce and operate, can't be repaired/services easily, and people own multiple of them per household. This "rebound effect" can be seen everywhere
- 5y ago
- wongarsu 5y agoA comprehensive carbon tax that's more expensive than CO2 sequestration will solve the problem by itself (or rather by market forces, everyone will either optimize away emissions or offset them with sequestration rather than pay the tax). For that we need a sequestration method that's cheap enough that a comprehensive CO2 tax at that price point is viable and won't be riddled with loopholes. $50/ton is still a bit high for that, but it's a lot closer than other methods we have so far.