5 ms·
We don't need more features "engineering", we need subtractive solutions. There's a lot of money to be made in wrapping trees in some new contraption, not so mu
by ericmay 4y ago
We don't need more features "engineering", we need subtractive solutions. There's a lot of money to be made in wrapping trees in some new contraption, not so much money to be made in building sidewalks and getting people out of their CO2 producing cars. Obviously we can do both at once, but we need a lot more thought leadership aimed at subtractive solutions.
- blueplanet200 4y agoWe need it all. Even if we're carbon neutral the CO2 is still in the air. We need a way to remove it. This is especially obvious given how long it's going to take to even get to carbon neutral. Can we stop with "we don't need solutions like THIS, we need this other solution." We're going head first into a climate crisis. We need all solutions here.
- mrguyorama 4y agoNot all "solutions" are equal. Some are a waste of resources and inefficient for their supposed results.
- marcosdumay 4y ago> We need it all. No, we don't. Right now we need to cut the 90% of the problem that is caused by the same 3 things. If you have some solution for a small part of the remaining 10% that is profitable or neutral, go for it.If you are arguing for research, so we can do it later, also, great. But if you want to divert attention from 90% of the problem just so you can improve your favorite 0.01%, just go sit in a corner somewhere until you get reasonable.
- jonas21 4y agoHow is building sidewalks a subtractive solution? Every mile of new concrete sidewalk emits about as much CO2 as driving a million miles. In some urban areas, you'll eventually make up for that. In places where people are not going to walk much anyway, probably not. The most expedient way of "getting people out of their CO2 producing cars" is to focus on the "CO2 producing" part, i.e. 1. Get people into electric cars, which even on the current grid cuts your CO2 emissions by over half due to better efficiency, and 2. Convert the electric grid to 100% clean energy. And it turns out there's a lot of money to be made in doing this too.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoBut even CO2 producing cars, have you ever heard of a gas-powered leaf blower or chainsaw? Even though efficiency has improved, in 2016 California reported that just 1 hour of a gas-powered leaf blower was the equivalent of taking a Camry from LA to Denver. You aren't going to motivate people to be better for the environment (by, say, buying a more expensive 40MPG vehicle instead of a 35MPG one), when it can so easily be wiped away by a guy just leaving a tool on for a few minutes more. Same situation with banning straws - nobody cares about the 1.6 billion masks in the ocean now (literally).
- jonas21 4y agoCan you cite your source on the leaf blower thing? I'm guessing they're talking about air quality, not CO2 emissions. Obviously, nobody's feeding their leaf blower 40 gallons of gas per hour.
- gjsman-1000 4y agohttps://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/13/its-time-to-ban-gas-powered-landscaping-equipment/ https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/13/its-time-to-ban-gas-pow... Air Quality, yes; but I will admit CO2 is not compared.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- function_seven 4y agoTo determine CO2, you can just look at the amount of fuel consumed. That'll get you close enough. A leaf-blower running for one hour will burn roughly 1/2 gal. of fuel. A 40mpg car going from LA to Denver will burn about 25 gallons of fuel. That car trip will generate around 50 times as much CO2 as the blower
- sbaiddn 4y agoPretty darn close! It should be well within 90% of the right answer. For a car probably about 99.9%
- nomel 4y ago> Obviously we can do both at once Who is this "we" [1]? 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
- golemotron 4y agoWe already have a subtractive solution. Birth rate in the industrialized world has plummeted and the demographic wave initiated by industrializaton has crested. We can expect carbon emissions for the next several hundred years to peak soon. In other words, the problem is solved. Any gargantuan efforts that we apply now are just about trying to get there a decade or two faster. Given the history of worldwide coordination attempts, it's not clear that it is possible or worth it.
- pg314 4y agoThe problem is far from solved. It's not enough that carbon emissions will peak soon. They need to come down fast. And we do not have a decade or two.
- golemotron 4y agoWe've had less than a decade since the 1970s. I'm very confident that in 2030 and 2040 we'll be told we have less than a decade too. Do you have doubts? Alarmism is a good way of moving people to action but it isn't accurate.
- digging 4y agoThis is wrong on a lot of levels. Primarily: 1. Every nation with a declining birth rate is shitting their pants about it and trying to raise the birth rate. It is seen as an existential crisis to not grow in population. 2. Birth rates have already been dropping for decades and carbon emissions are continuing to climb because we keep finding new ways to spend money on creating carbon emissions.
- golemotron 4y agoSo, 2 will get better and no country has figured out now to solve 1 yet. Not even handing out money works.
- landemva 4y ago.cz seems to have figured it out. Maybe Hungary also, though I would need to look. "One country that has seen a steep rise in its fertility rate is the Czech Republic." https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/07/improve-us-birth-rate-give-parents-money-and-time/619367 https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/07/improve-u...