4 ms·
I've said this repeatedly here: the world won't address climate change even if it's mildly inconvenient to do so, let alone the massive endeavours that have bee
by cletus 5y ago
I've said this repeatedly here: the world won't address climate change even if it's mildly inconvenient to do so, let alone the massive endeavours that have been proposed thus far.
The solution will be economic.
Want to replace fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources? It won't happen until those alternatives are cheaper.
When energy is sufficiently cheap or the byproducts are sufficiently valuable, that's when carbon extraction from the atmosphere will make sense.
I've seen some ideas for this. One is to use renewable energy to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into gasoline. That's actually not that hard. It's just chemistry after all. Alternatives are things like graphene.
There are places in the world where this could make sense. A given area might be remote such that building pipes of delivering such fuel is cost-prohibitive. Likewise, the cost of extending an electric grid might be too high. Or it simply may not be feasible because of politics.
This can negate the disadvantage solar and wind have in being variable power output and/or simply using a hydrocarbon fuel as a means of storing excess energy.
This would technically be carbon neutral not carbon negative but it'd be a start.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"Want to replace fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources? It won't happen until those alternatives are cheaper" We are going to go extinct with that attitude - the laws on nature do not owe us a cheaper method of producing energy. The Moneyed classes have never given up anything willingly: the end of monarchy, the end of slavery and even labour laws were won in blood. Its likely to be the same with climate change
- cletus 5y ago> We are going to go extinct with that attitude I understand your point and I agree (within limits) but that makes it no less true. Side note: total extinction of the human race is incredibly unlikely at this point and certainly not from climate change. That's not to say that huge numbers of us won't die in the process. > the laws on nature do not owe us a cheaper method of producing energy Of course not but increasing fossil fuel costs ultimately make other forms of energy production economic. > The Moneyed classes have never given up anything willingly: the end of monarchy, the end of slavery and even labour laws were won in blood. I agree but that's really a whole separate topic. The unwillingness of the ultra-wealthy to pay for the society that makes their wealth possible and the legions of people who adamantly oppose the ultra-wealthy just being slightly less ultra-wealthy is a recipe for disaster. The ultimate form of wealth redistribution is war and revolution.
- PeterisP 5y ago> The Moneyed classes have never given up anything willingly: the end of monarchy, the end of slavery and even labour laws were won in blood. Its likely to be the same with climate change This seems to be a very valid observation. However, it's worth noting that with respect to climate change, it's nto about some mystical "0.1%" but rather in this case the "moneyed classes" include the vast majority of the first world citizens, which (as you state) are very unlikely to give up their privilege willingly unless the "global south", who will suffer the worst parts of the climate change first, would win that concession through blood. However, as a counterpoint, nuclear weapons do act as a reasonably effective veto in conflict escalation.