39 ms·

Would not that have massive CO2 footprint? It would be very expensive to pay for it. Vulcanic eruption is natural and does not count, but man-made emmisions req

Would not that have massive CO2 footprint? It would be very expensive to pay for it. Vulcanic eruption is natural and does not count, but man-made emmisions require permit.

gambiting 5y ago
>>Vulcanic eruption is natural and does not count, I'm pretty sure the Earth's atmoshphere is physically incapable of differentiating between man-released CO2 and naturally released CO2. >> man-made emmisions require permit Whose permit? On what authority? Even if such permit would be required, who would deny it if the alternative was literally the destruction of a large portion of the United States(if we are talking about Yellowstone exploding)?
- Supermancho 5y ago
  This would be an issue of national security. I would not want to be the person who spends money to set up drilling toward the Yellowstone Supervolcano without alerting the US Department of the Interior of the plans.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    I can only imagine that such a massive enterprise would be entirely conducted by the US Government, probably any of the military branches(is Engineers Corps still a thing?)
    - kingaillas 5y ago
      The Army Corps of Engineers is a thing... their civil works authority makes them the final authority on water management (changing river flow, dams, anything related to water management.) Not sure about supervolcanos though, couldn't find that on their website. I am sure that a minimum of the US Geological Survey and ACE will be involved in any supervolcano remediation plan. And probably FEMA but hopefully they won't need to act. ;)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- zoe4883 5y ago
  There is Paris Agreement, most countries signed including Italy and US. Detonating nukes and releasing several gigatons of CO2 is more dangerous than supervulcano. Naturally released CO2 is harmless. There is a difference!
  - gambiting 5y ago
    >>Detonating nukes and releasing several gigatons of CO2 is more dangerous than supervulcano. Eh? You are aware that if Yellowstone were to erupt it would literally mean the destruction of the United States. How is "defusing" the vulcano by detonating nukes "more dangerous" exactly? >>Naturally released CO2 is harmless. Again, atmosphere doesn't care - CO2 is CO2. Yes it doesn't count towards calculations that we currently do to model climate predictions, but it's not harmless, and a supervulcano event will fuck everything up, it doesn't magically stop having an effect just because it's natural.
    - zoe4883 5y ago
      How is that not positive? Drilling means gigatons of new CO2 emmisions. Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future. And nuclear winter from dust could stop global warming!
      - bashinator 5y ago
        > Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future. I imagine this is technically accurate, as an eruption of for example Yellowstone would utterly destroy most human civilization in North America.
        brohee 5y ago
        https://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108169/yellowstone-supervolcano-eruption https://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108169/yellowstone-supervolcan... Definitely impactful but not civilization ending.
      - 5y ago

Would not that have massive CO2 footprint? It would be very expensive to pay for it. Vulcanic eruption is natural and does not count, but man-made emmisions require permit.

gambiting 5y ago

>>Vulcanic eruption is natural and does not count, I'm pretty sure the Earth's atmoshphere is physically incapable of differentiating between man-released CO2 and naturally released CO2. >> man-made emmisions require permit Whose permit? On what authority? Even if such permit would be required, who would deny it if the alternative was literally the destruction of a large portion of the United States(if we are talking about Yellowstone exploding)?

Supermancho 5y ago
This would be an issue of national security. I would not want to be the person who spends money to set up drilling toward the Yellowstone Supervolcano without alerting the US Department of the Interior of the plans.
- gambiting 5y ago
  I can only imagine that such a massive enterprise would be entirely conducted by the US Government, probably any of the military branches(is Engineers Corps still a thing?)
  - kingaillas 5y ago
    The Army Corps of Engineers is a thing... their civil works authority makes them the final authority on water management (changing river flow, dams, anything related to water management.) Not sure about supervolcanos though, couldn't find that on their website. I am sure that a minimum of the US Geological Survey and ACE will be involved in any supervolcano remediation plan. And probably FEMA but hopefully they won't need to act. ;)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
zoe4883 5y ago
There is Paris Agreement, most countries signed including Italy and US. Detonating nukes and releasing several gigatons of CO2 is more dangerous than supervulcano. Naturally released CO2 is harmless. There is a difference!
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>Detonating nukes and releasing several gigatons of CO2 is more dangerous than supervulcano. Eh? You are aware that if Yellowstone were to erupt it would literally mean the destruction of the United States. How is "defusing" the vulcano by detonating nukes "more dangerous" exactly? >>Naturally released CO2 is harmless. Again, atmosphere doesn't care - CO2 is CO2. Yes it doesn't count towards calculations that we currently do to model climate predictions, but it's not harmless, and a supervulcano event will fuck everything up, it doesn't magically stop having an effect just because it's natural.
  - zoe4883 5y ago
    How is that not positive? Drilling means gigatons of new CO2 emmisions. Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future. And nuclear winter from dust could stop global warming!
    - bashinator 5y ago
      > Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future. I imagine this is technically accurate, as an eruption of for example Yellowstone would utterly destroy most human civilization in North America.
      - brohee 5y ago
        https://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108169/yellowstone-supervolcano-eruption https://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108169/yellowstone-supervolcan... Definitely impactful but not civilization ending.
    - 5y ago