2 ms·
In the 80s, we were going to do it by the 90s. In the 90s, we were going to do it by the millenium. In the 2000s, we were going to do it by 2020. In 2016 we
by LatteLazy 4y ago
In the 80s, we were going to do it by the 90s.
In the 90s, we were going to do it by the millenium.
In the 2000s, we were going to do it by 2020.
In 2016 we agreed in Paris not to do anything, and just hope it would be fixed by 2030.
But this time, we are totally definitely going to do it, just give us another decade for someone else to actually do the actual doing.
- ben_w 4y agoThe only reason to be hopeful this time, is that the right thing to do happens to also be the cheapest thing to do.
- LatteLazy 4y agoSadly I don't think we are there yet. Some electrical generation is cheaper with renewables. But that only helps with electricity. What about aviation, or construction? We've waited for 50 years for someone else to solve this at no cost to us. We'll wait another 5000 and all drown in floods at this rate. Cest la vie. Sorry to be a downer...
- ben_w 4y agoWell, aviation, sure, we'd either have to make new hydrogen fuelled jet engines, or industrialise Sabatier process and methane fuelled jets, or industrialise Sabatier process and polymerisation of methane into longer chains for direct substitution with existing jet fuel, so that's certainly a thing to doubt. But construction? Nah, we use concrete because it's cheap, but PV electricity is so much cheaper than other sources it's got a obvious path for widespread use of structural aluminium (and I've seen a demo of electrolytic iron reduction, so also for structural steel), and filling in the gaps between the structural frame has so many existing options it isn't worth listing them all even if I knew them and their various situational pros/cons.