5 ms·

By the time we're in a position to 'pay back' the emitted CO2 we have to be well beyond CO2 neutral energy. Otherwise it's easier to just offset our existing fo

By the time we're in a position to 'pay back' the emitted CO2 we have to be well beyond CO2 neutral energy. Otherwise it's easier to just offset our existing fossil uses instead of reclamation. We'll have to have a huge surplus of say 10x our energy use right now because reclaiming at any decent speed will cost huge amounts of energy. At that point most of the climate change will have already happened and we'll have dealt with the results for better or worse. If we're to try and reverse it at that point it would result in yet another climate change from the state we'll be in then. People will have settled in the new conditions and I doubt they'll really want it changed back at that point. Especially because most disruptive extreme weather will occur during the changes. Not before and after. It's not as if the pre-industrial climate is some kind of ideal for the world. The world has no natural stable state. Climate change is totally normal, the problem is with the speed with which it happens now which is tens or hundreds of times faster than what is normal. However this goes for the way back as well. By the time we have the extreme amount of free energy we'll need to revert climate change, the reversion itself will cause its own disruption. In other words we have to go all in on prevention.. Trying to fix it afterwards is going to make things worse.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 4y ago
> By the time we're in a position to 'pay back' the emitted CO2 we have to be well beyond CO2 neutral energy. That certainty is not warranted. Solar does seem much easier to generate than to store. It's uncertain how mobile usage will evolve on the short term. We have a lot of capital dependent on fossil fuels that won't be deprecated immediately. And finally, it's not clear if we can't do carbon capture at a loss before renewables win the market for generation. Or, in conclusion, we should make a new global climate conference, with targets for capture. There is no reason for waiting the energy market to fully convert before doing it.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  > Solar does seem much easier to generate than to store. It's uncertain how mobile usage will evolve on the short term. A lot of mobility tech is speeding up rapidly. Countries are banning fossil fuel cars a lot sooner. And even if we store solar power at a loss, we're still storing it. It's still displacing fossil. > We have a lot of capital dependent on fossil fuels that won't be deprecated immediately. Really, this is the kind of excuse that keeps us from moving on. If we can't even deprecate some fossil fuel investments that have been made in the full knowledge of the problem, we really have no chance of fixing this. There is absolutely no reason such concerns should carry any weight. The sacrifices we need to make to solve this are way beyond that. > And finally, it's not clear if we can't do carbon capture at a loss before renewables win the market for generation. > Or, in conclusion, we should make a new global climate conference, with targets for capture. There is no reason for waiting the energy market to fully convert before doing it. I really don't think it's viable at any scale. To make a dent in the CO2 levels, we not only need a tremendous amount of energy to perform the reclamation. We also have to mine the earth for the raw materials for all this machinery. Ship it to a place that's suitable. Construct and maintain it all, and its energy generation equipment. All things that are not climate neutral and also have negative impacts on the environment in many other ways (mining of the materials etc). And all the resources we commit to it can't be used to displace fossil fuel technologies. Not emitting the CO2 we're going to capture evades all these issues. I just don't see this being viable at the scale we need it to really make a dent. I view it mainly as a procrastination excuse, and a way to monetise the problem for some tech entrepreneurs. It makes the immediate problem less urgent if you think you can fix it later.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/carbon-emissions-to-peak-in-2025-in-historic-turning-point-says-iea https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/carbon-e... > Global carbon emissions from energy will peak in 2025 thanks to massively increased government spending on clean fuels in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to analysis by the world’s leading energy organisation. > The International Energy Agency (IEA) said that government spending on clean energy in response to the crisis would mark a “historic turning point” in the transition away from fossil fuels, in its annual report on global energy. > The invasion of Ukraine has prompted an energy crisis around the world, with global gas prices initially surging. The crisis has caused steep inflation that has made households poorer around the world. > Governments have been scrambling to find other sources of energy. Some analysts have questioned whether fears over energy security could lead to the use of fossil fuels for longer, slowing the world’s race to net zero carbon emissions. Some countries – including the US and the UK under previous prime minister Liz Truss – have pledged to encourage fossil fuel extraction to try to ease prices.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

marcosdumay 4y ago

> By the time we're in a position to 'pay back' the emitted CO2 we have to be well beyond CO2 neutral energy. That certainty is not warranted. Solar does seem much easier to generate than to store. It's uncertain how mobile usage will evolve on the short term. We have a lot of capital dependent on fossil fuels that won't be deprecated immediately. And finally, it's not clear if we can't do carbon capture at a loss before renewables win the market for generation. Or, in conclusion, we should make a new global climate conference, with targets for capture. There is no reason for waiting the energy market to fully convert before doing it.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
> Solar does seem much easier to generate than to store. It's uncertain how mobile usage will evolve on the short term. A lot of mobility tech is speeding up rapidly. Countries are banning fossil fuel cars a lot sooner. And even if we store solar power at a loss, we're still storing it. It's still displacing fossil. > We have a lot of capital dependent on fossil fuels that won't be deprecated immediately. Really, this is the kind of excuse that keeps us from moving on. If we can't even deprecate some fossil fuel investments that have been made in the full knowledge of the problem, we really have no chance of fixing this. There is absolutely no reason such concerns should carry any weight. The sacrifices we need to make to solve this are way beyond that. > And finally, it's not clear if we can't do carbon capture at a loss before renewables win the market for generation. > Or, in conclusion, we should make a new global climate conference, with targets for capture. There is no reason for waiting the energy market to fully convert before doing it. I really don't think it's viable at any scale. To make a dent in the CO2 levels, we not only need a tremendous amount of energy to perform the reclamation. We also have to mine the earth for the raw materials for all this machinery. Ship it to a place that's suitable. Construct and maintain it all, and its energy generation equipment. All things that are not climate neutral and also have negative impacts on the environment in many other ways (mining of the materials etc). And all the resources we commit to it can't be used to displace fossil fuel technologies. Not emitting the CO2 we're going to capture evades all these issues. I just don't see this being viable at the scale we need it to really make a dent. I view it mainly as a procrastination excuse, and a way to monetise the problem for some tech entrepreneurs. It makes the immediate problem less urgent if you think you can fix it later.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/carbon-emissions-to-peak-in-2025-in-historic-turning-point-says-iea https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/carbon-e... > Global carbon emissions from energy will peak in 2025 thanks to massively increased government spending on clean fuels in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to analysis by the world’s leading energy organisation. > The International Energy Agency (IEA) said that government spending on clean energy in response to the crisis would mark a “historic turning point” in the transition away from fossil fuels, in its annual report on global energy. > The invasion of Ukraine has prompted an energy crisis around the world, with global gas prices initially surging. The crisis has caused steep inflation that has made households poorer around the world. > Governments have been scrambling to find other sources of energy. Some analysts have questioned whether fears over energy security could lead to the use of fossil fuels for longer, slowing the world’s race to net zero carbon emissions. Some countries – including the US and the UK under previous prime minister Liz Truss – have pledged to encourage fossil fuel extraction to try to ease prices.