24 ms·
When fixing one gives you 0.01% and fixing the other - 99.99% you go for a second one to achieve any sizeable gains. Doing it the other way is only good for foo
by FpUser 4y ago
When fixing one gives you 0.01% and fixing the other - 99.99% you go for a second one to achieve any sizeable gains. Doing it the other way is only good for fooling people to gain some points in one's political career.
And you do not even have to fix second one completely to see positive results so it is not fixing everything at once.
- ericmay 4y agoToo simplistic. You can’t do the “99.99%” thing if you violate a population’s sense of justice. In fact you will almost surely make the problem even worse.
- FpUser 4y agoMy sense of justice is violated just by looking what Governments do to their citizens never mind "green area". And it is all across the world save for the degree of shittiness.
- vel0city 4y agoWhat's the one thing that will solve 99.99% of climate change issues?
- tomp 4y agoGeneral non-discriminatory carbon tax. Investing heavily in nuclear. Just 2 obvious ideas that noone is even trying.
- vel0city 4y agoInvesting heavily in nuclear isn't going to remove 99.99% the sources of greenhouse gasses. Adding some taxes will reduce some of the usage but not 99.99%, unless you price the tax so high nobody can realistically afford jet fuel or diesel or propane or steak or bacon. Increasing the price of concrete might make projects more expensive, but they're probably still going to use concrete. Neither of these are 99.99%. Probably not even 80%.
- tomp 4y agoI disagree. Most of climate change is caused by fossil fuels. The rest are caused e.g. by factory farming (plant & animal - e.g. pesticide rundown), plastic pollution, etc. If we had boundless nuclear energy, not only would fossil fuels become price inefficient, we could devote the extra energy we generate into synthetic fossil fuels, carbon capture, reducing pollution, etc. Almost all of these are energy bound right now.
- vel0city 4y agoAccording to the EPA, agriculture accounts for 10% of GHG emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Building a nuclear reactor isn't going to make steak go away. So even if you solved.for transportation and industrial uses and everything else you're still only at 90%, not 99.99%. > If we had boundless nuclear energy, More of this "nuclear energy will be too cheap to meter" talk. Nuclear energy is more expensive than other sources, not cheaper. It won't be cheaper to make synthetic fossil fuels, it'll be more expensive. > Almost all of these are energy bound right now. They're all price bound right now, because the cost of energy is so high in comparison to alternatives. So high most would probably just avoid using it entirely. Spending trillions building a bunch of reactors isn't making it cheaper you're just committing to spending more of it up front. Either way, making the synthetic fuels isn't the same as just building the reactors. We can have synthetic fuels without nuclear, we can have nuclear without the synthetic fuels, they're independent. So neither one is 99.99% on its own, it's no longer "one thing" like what the person I originally replied to stated. They supposedly have one thing that will solve 99.99% of GHG emissions. I'm not looking for something that will even solve 80% or 90%, why waste time with that when there's one thing to solve it 99.99%. So once again I ask, what is one thing that will solve 99.99% of GHG emissions?
- tomp 4y agoTransportation emissions are caused by fossil fuels. As for agriculture, check the rest of the page. Besides CO2, there's also methane and NO2 emissions, both of which are part of a cycle, so they have no long-term impact. The entirety of long-term impact of agriculture is, again, fossil fuels, which is literally digging extra C from the ground and adding that extra CO2 into the atmosphere (technically, TBH, it's also part of a cycle, but instead of 114 years as with NO2, that cycle is millions of years long). The point is if we invest much more in nuclear, it will become too cheap to meter (e.g. we start using modular reactors that benefit from economies of scale).
- FpUser 4y ago>"What's the one thing that will solve 99.99% of climate change issues?" 99.99% is a figure of speech. The idea is to start with big items. Cooking using gas is far below other "offenders". Go for those first as even if partially it will still be way more effective.
- vel0city 4y agoIt's an ineffective one, because there isn't any single category that is even 90% or 80% of the issue. Everything is just a small drop in the bucket, it's just that there are lots of drops.