3 ms·

> This is solvable with synthetic fuels and offsets. Well, until it is solved (and it clearly isn’t- carbon offsets are basically bullshit), maybe we should wo

> This is solvable with synthetic fuels and offsets. Well, until it is solved (and it clearly isn’t- carbon offsets are basically bullshit), maybe we should work on that rather than making the amount of stuff to offset even bigger? Forcing quality of life reduction is going to be hard enough without the world’s 1% (i.e. us) finding new ways to spew out carbon by jetting around at Mach9

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> we should work on that rather than making the amount of stuff to offset even bigger False economy. Developing e.g. rotating detonation engines requires solving flame front, detonation mechanics, additive manufacturing and materials science problems. (Off the top of my head.) Do you really not see any interdisciplinary applications for any of those? This is the failure of top-down industry planning and scientific regulation: you miss unexpected gains.
- xeyownt 4y ago
  Then let's see the unexpected stuff we can get by developing carbon reduction and cheaper transport technologies. This is the failure of lack of scientific regulation: you go head first in the wall.
  - relativ575 4y ago
    > Then let's see the unexpected stuff we can get by developing carbon reduction and cheaper transport technologies. Do both. Does this investment in hypersonic transportation somehow prevent others from pursuing carbon reduction and cheaper transport technologies?