4 ms·

The only solution I can see is not a technological one, CO2 sinks is not reliable, too hypothetical, the solution is just low-conmsumption (my footprint is abou

The only solution I can see is not a technological one, CO2 sinks is not reliable, too hypothetical, the solution is just low-conmsumption (my footprint is about 400kg CO2/year, no discomfort though), but we're too few to care trying it, sadly because it's actually beneficial on many levels

suby 4y ago
We shut down a large swath of the global economy for Covid, and emissions only went down 4.6%[0]. We then faced shortages that are in some areas still ongoing today, not to mention inflation. I think if there's any technological hope of fixing the problem, damaging the supply chain through some sort of degrowth strategy will create a large obstacle to getting there. I also think that if you tried to do this in a democratic society, your party will be voted out in the next election. To me it doesn't seem like lower consumption is the solution given all of this. [0] - https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/06/30/greenhouse-emissions-rise-to-record-erasing-drop-during-pandemic https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/06/30/greenhouse-...
- 11235813213455 4y ago
  5% is actually huge with just partial lockdowns (car traffic was still allowed, there was just some time restrictions), and if the situation continued then life styles and the whole industry chain would have also adapted making this figure much larger "shortages" are very relative, does it concern vital resources? (like water (not plastic bottle water but tap water), vegetables, rice, soap). Let alone the amount of waste is huge This choice will sooner or later be forced, either from inflation, or government restrictions. We misunderestimate the massive crisis coming, it will be nowhere close Covid
- timeon 4y ago
  Online shopping did not stop. Things were still produced at high rate.
LatteLazy 4y ago
All and any solutions (except living with it) fail because they lack a global enforcement mechanism. Individual and national action has been failing for this reason for decades. All of the "treaties" signed so far lack the same core element. The nice thing about a technological solution (really you need multiple solutions but assume they all arrive at the same time) would be that it would self organise (people will choose to move to fusion power IF it is cheaper than coal etc). But it's now too late for that too since even if the solutions came out tomorrow, any chance of implementing them globally before the 2040s is basically gone (no one will buy a tesla for 60k to save 5k a year in fuel costs, no one will spend 10bn on a fusion power plant when they already have a newish gas turbine plant with 30 years of life left in it). The key now adaptation. But as was the case with the problem 30 years ago, it will take 30 years for people to take that seriously. It's not until people are already drowning that they will pay for a life-preserver and by then it's too late...

suby 4y ago

We shut down a large swath of the global economy for Covid, and emissions only went down 4.6%[0]. We then faced shortages that are in some areas still ongoing today, not to mention inflation. I think if there's any technological hope of fixing the problem, damaging the supply chain through some sort of degrowth strategy will create a large obstacle to getting there. I also think that if you tried to do this in a democratic society, your party will be voted out in the next election. To me it doesn't seem like lower consumption is the solution given all of this. [0] - https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/06/30/greenhouse-emissions-rise-to-record-erasing-drop-during-pandemic https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/06/30/greenhouse-...

11235813213455 4y ago
5% is actually huge with just partial lockdowns (car traffic was still allowed, there was just some time restrictions), and if the situation continued then life styles and the whole industry chain would have also adapted making this figure much larger "shortages" are very relative, does it concern vital resources? (like water (not plastic bottle water but tap water), vegetables, rice, soap). Let alone the amount of waste is huge This choice will sooner or later be forced, either from inflation, or government restrictions. We misunderestimate the massive crisis coming, it will be nowhere close Covid
timeon 4y ago
Online shopping did not stop. Things were still produced at high rate.

LatteLazy 4y ago

All and any solutions (except living with it) fail because they lack a global enforcement mechanism. Individual and national action has been failing for this reason for decades. All of the "treaties" signed so far lack the same core element. The nice thing about a technological solution (really you need multiple solutions but assume they all arrive at the same time) would be that it would self organise (people will choose to move to fusion power IF it is cheaper than coal etc). But it's now too late for that too since even if the solutions came out tomorrow, any chance of implementing them globally before the 2040s is basically gone (no one will buy a tesla for 60k to save 5k a year in fuel costs, no one will spend 10bn on a fusion power plant when they already have a newish gas turbine plant with 30 years of life left in it). The key now adaptation. But as was the case with the problem 30 years ago, it will take 30 years for people to take that seriously. It's not until people are already drowning that they will pay for a life-preserver and by then it's too late...