3 ms·
BTW, we have known, since at least 2014, that, even if we deploy the most optimal forms of renewable energy at a planetary scale, it will not solve the problem.
by robomartin 4y ago
BTW, we have known, since at least 2014, that, even if we deploy the most optimal forms of renewable energy at a planetary scale, it will not solve the problem. If we were able to accomplish such a feat, not only would atmospheric CO2 levels not drop, they would continue to rise.
There are research papers written about this. I’m on my phone now, so I can’t reach for my files. I have written about this extensively on HN. If interested, I am sure the posts can be found.
- Aachen 4y agoThat much is obvious if you only factor in clean energy without GHG capture (note: capture is also being worked on), but a very slow rise is a whole different climate outcome (and gives us time to figure the rest out for centuries) than the current rise that has a measurable impact well within our lifetime. Put another way, you're gonna die anyhow but most people prefer not to invite it while they can still live healthily. An argument about not being able to stop it completely when we can postpone the worst part by how many centuries (even without already existing capture technology) sounds very weird to me.