3 ms·

“Not as per musk” I mean, when you get rid of techno-fixes, you’re left with 100% unrealistic political solutions (Degrowth) and, like, maybe mass genocide? Why

“Not as per musk” I mean, when you get rid of techno-fixes, you’re left with 100% unrealistic political solutions (Degrowth) and, like, maybe mass genocide? Why are people so conditioned nowadays to be anti-technology in fixing this? There are no solutions that are neither technological nor terrible. Decarbonization via electrification while simultaneously transitioning all electricity to renewables (& maybe some nuclear) is the most straightforward method. Besides solar radiation management, like sulfur aerosols in the stratosphere, which is scary-cheap. Or accelerated weathering.

halfjoking 3y ago
Most straightforward carbon removal is accelerated rock weathering IMO https://www.projectvesta.org/ https://www.projectvesta.org/ The ocean is the carbon sink that’s reaching a tipping point. If it keeps becoming more acidic and heating up, the plankton will die, oxygen levels drop and we all die. Limestone rock weathering is how carbon is lowered naturally - usually it happens from an earthquake that exposes these types of rocks. Then over millions of years they suck carbon out of ocean as they weather. Accelerating that process by transporting the rocks to coastal areas with a lot of waves will dramatically reduce carbon. We’re talking carbon removal at less than $20/ton. Nothing else comes close, is as natural, or attacks the problem at the source by going after ocean carbon and acidification. We need $1 trillion spent yearly on rock weathering and we could avert mass death this decade. We got about 3 years to do it. 2026 is the last chance since El Niño and the sun cycle is at peak that year, after that human civilization is done for.
- koalala 3y ago
  sorry, I'm aware that climate change is a serious problem requiring decisive action, but could you explain exactly your claim that 'humanity is done for' by 2026? this sounds somewhat exaggerated and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  - halfjoking 3y ago
    Yeah it's alarmist, but I believe exponential growth in climate change could occur very soon due to feedbacks. Here's the reasoning: https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2023/02/dire-situation-gets-even-more-dire.html https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2023/02/dire-situation-gets... Only thing I disagree with on that blog is that the feedbacks will happen over a longer timeline. But 2026 is the tipping point year where climate change starts accelerating so fast it won't be able to be stopped. Then over the next 5-10 years things like "Clouds Tipping Point" (https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/clouds-feedback.html https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/clouds-feedback.html) will be reached. So 2026 is the beginning of the end of human civilization IMO. Of course some people may live underground, in the ocean or other places, but billions of people will die within 10 years following the 2026 tipping point. Billions is the low estimate, more like 99.999999% of humans.
    - tdullien 3y ago
      Are you sure you're right about those nines?
llsf 3y ago
Technology might not have a solution to all the problems. Especially when extracting free and limited resources (like free fossil fuel, free lithium, etc.) is part of the tech solution. Technology is part of the solution, but maybe sobriety e.g. do we really need to produce so much almonds in California, which requires a lot of water, to end up squeezing those almonds to make some "milk". Maybe not the best usage of water ? Do we need so many private vehicles ? (278M personal and commercial vehicles were registered to drivers in the U.S. in 2021... for a population of 330M), etc. I get that "regrowth" is scary, but maybe some more responsible consumption could help to not make things even worse. Technology has definitely a role, since it put us in that position. I agree that electrification would streamline our energy production and consumption. We would need a strong baseline (e.g. nuclear) and renewable too. I do feel that we will look at the 1950-2030 as the years of "insouciance" and abundance, thanks to fossil fuel (energy, plastic, electronic waste, etc.). I suspect that we will have to change how we get/consume energy, and reduce our consumption, maybe with less and more sustainable "stuff"...
hotpotamus 3y ago
I think people start to get weirded out when you start talking about changing the composition of the atmosphere that they breathe and also they don't realize how ironic that is. Aren't we already about 100ppm above pre-industrial CO2 levels already? At this point, why not throw some other gasses in there to try and cool it down a bit? Honestly, given that it's the cheap, half-assed solution, I assume it's the way things will eventually go.
HyperSane 3y ago
Long term heat waves might kill enough people to reduce CO2 emissions significantly.
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
There are no solutions, as such, because "solution" implies "problem to be solved", not "predicament we blundered into with no way out".

halfjoking 3y ago

Most straightforward carbon removal is accelerated rock weathering IMO https://www.projectvesta.org/ https://www.projectvesta.org/ The ocean is the carbon sink that’s reaching a tipping point. If it keeps becoming more acidic and heating up, the plankton will die, oxygen levels drop and we all die. Limestone rock weathering is how carbon is lowered naturally - usually it happens from an earthquake that exposes these types of rocks. Then over millions of years they suck carbon out of ocean as they weather. Accelerating that process by transporting the rocks to coastal areas with a lot of waves will dramatically reduce carbon. We’re talking carbon removal at less than $20/ton. Nothing else comes close, is as natural, or attacks the problem at the source by going after ocean carbon and acidification. We need $1 trillion spent yearly on rock weathering and we could avert mass death this decade. We got about 3 years to do it. 2026 is the last chance since El Niño and the sun cycle is at peak that year, after that human civilization is done for.

koalala 3y ago
sorry, I'm aware that climate change is a serious problem requiring decisive action, but could you explain exactly your claim that 'humanity is done for' by 2026? this sounds somewhat exaggerated and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- halfjoking 3y ago
  Yeah it's alarmist, but I believe exponential growth in climate change could occur very soon due to feedbacks. Here's the reasoning: https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2023/02/dire-situation-gets-even-more-dire.html https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2023/02/dire-situation-gets... Only thing I disagree with on that blog is that the feedbacks will happen over a longer timeline. But 2026 is the tipping point year where climate change starts accelerating so fast it won't be able to be stopped. Then over the next 5-10 years things like "Clouds Tipping Point" (https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/clouds-feedback.html https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/clouds-feedback.html) will be reached. So 2026 is the beginning of the end of human civilization IMO. Of course some people may live underground, in the ocean or other places, but billions of people will die within 10 years following the 2026 tipping point. Billions is the low estimate, more like 99.999999% of humans.
  - tdullien 3y ago
    Are you sure you're right about those nines?

llsf 3y ago

Technology might not have a solution to all the problems. Especially when extracting free and limited resources (like free fossil fuel, free lithium, etc.) is part of the tech solution. Technology is part of the solution, but maybe sobriety e.g. do we really need to produce so much almonds in California, which requires a lot of water, to end up squeezing those almonds to make some "milk". Maybe not the best usage of water ? Do we need so many private vehicles ? (278M personal and commercial vehicles were registered to drivers in the U.S. in 2021... for a population of 330M), etc. I get that "regrowth" is scary, but maybe some more responsible consumption could help to not make things even worse. Technology has definitely a role, since it put us in that position. I agree that electrification would streamline our energy production and consumption. We would need a strong baseline (e.g. nuclear) and renewable too. I do feel that we will look at the 1950-2030 as the years of "insouciance" and abundance, thanks to fossil fuel (energy, plastic, electronic waste, etc.). I suspect that we will have to change how we get/consume energy, and reduce our consumption, maybe with less and more sustainable "stuff"...

hotpotamus 3y ago

I think people start to get weirded out when you start talking about changing the composition of the atmosphere that they breathe and also they don't realize how ironic that is. Aren't we already about 100ppm above pre-industrial CO2 levels already? At this point, why not throw some other gasses in there to try and cool it down a bit? Honestly, given that it's the cheap, half-assed solution, I assume it's the way things will eventually go.

HyperSane 3y ago

Long term heat waves might kill enough people to reduce CO2 emissions significantly.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

There are no solutions, as such, because "solution" implies "problem to be solved", not "predicament we blundered into with no way out".