5 ms·

Of course it would be possible. The problem isn't technological, it's political.

• winReInstall 4y ago
  No, its not. Not only. The political problem is a epxression of a deeper pathology. This species is unable to form innovative (free) societies without a constant surplus of ressources and energy. We "unchanged" are a exponential curve, bumping against a linear ceiling and this needs to fixed first, to even have the mental tooling and stability to handle grand projects.
• gruez 4y ago
  >The problem isn't technological, it's political. I guess that's true in the technical sense, but it doesn't mean much. Electric cars were a thing in the 19th century, yet it was only in the past decade or so that they gotten popular. Would you characterize the failure of electric cars to get traction as "The problem isn't technological, it's political"? The first result for "cost to decarbonize"[1] says it would cost $340T, compared to global GDP of $80T. You could argue that it's a political problem that we're not allocating our budget towards that goal, but at the same time you could argue that if technology improved it would be a much easier pill to swallow. [1] https://boereport.com/2019/02/26/the-cost-of-decarbonization-how-much-green-to-go-green/ https://boereport.com/2019/02/26/the-cost-of-decarbonization...
  • adrianN 4y ago
    That climate change is a serious problem was established science at the end of the eighties. Had we started to address the problem in earnest back then, it would've been much cheaper to decarbonize. Instead we built bigger cars, dismantled public transport, continued to build houses with poor insulation and stopped building nuclear power plants. That consumed so much of our carbon budget that today, when there are very few technical hurdles left, we ran out of time and costs exploded.