4 ms·
I looked at your previous comments and retract my accusation. Apologies. Most of the time when someone mentions CO2 air concentration it's as a prelude to push
by Schroedingersat 4y ago
I looked at your previous comments and retract my accusation. Apologies.
Most of the time when someone mentions CO2 air concentration it's as a prelude to pushing CCS or some vague idea about producing 100s of kW of energy per person using nuclear abundanceand I pattern matched a little preemptively.
This doesn't excuse your rhetoric about it not being urgent though. The damage may take effect later, but it is being done right now.
- lazide 4y agoThanks for acknowledging that, it isn’t easy. You might want to recheck again though on that urgency claim. I never said that either. To recap some discussions in other threads, what I’m pointing out is due to the sheer size of the problem, this will take decades to centuries to get under control (if the models are right, barring some truly revolutionary technology), no matter what. Depending on the level of force used, it can and likely will lead to large scale war, which burns even more oil based on the way military operations are run now (and for the foreseeable future). Even if we did things at the urgency level of the Manhattan project with infinite resources - unless we burned more oil. Even then, probably. This is a heavily overloaded train that has been building up speed for 150+ years. As to if any individual should be panicking or calm about this is up to them, but I personally find panic to put someone in a place where they are easily misled and results in bad and poorly thought out decisions which can often make it worse. Which tends to be why folks go to fascism when they’re overloaded and scared, IMO. As to if this discussion is useful or not? I don’t know. But I figured I’d throw it out there.