3 ms·

> We have to find ways to sequester. And we have to find ways to live in a warmer climate. It's the most probable outcome. This is not the only conclusion from

> We have to find ways to sequester. And we have to find ways to live in a warmer climate. It's the most probable outcome. This is not the only conclusion from your excellent observation. Another conclusion could be that rich nations fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries without asking anything in return. I believe this is what the climate relief fund is about—as approved (albeit in a much too small scale) in last COP. So far however rich nations are not only reluctant to fund infrastructure projects in other countries without anything in return—let alone green infrastructure projects—they are also reluctant to fund green infrastructure projects domestically (see e.g. Green New Deal in the US). The technology for mass carbon sequestration does not exist yet, and if it existed I bet it would follow the same prospects as current prospects of tackling the climate crisis. In short, they will not be built at the scale needed for any meaningful results. This is often the case when you offer a technical solution to a societal or a political problem.

rayiner 4y ago
So the solution isn’t a real solution? You know what’s harder than carbon capture? Re-engineering human nature.
- runarberg 4y ago
  Has been done multiple times over. Successful examples include global ban on ozone depleting chemicals, multiple standards for international trade, just run of the mill law and policy, human rights, etc. It is in human nature not to destroy our climate, it took extremely wealthy and persistent class of polluters concentrated effort for the past few decades to prevent climate actions from various governments. Human populations—most of which residing in democracies—would have loved for governments to ratify the various treaties that would have saved our climate. As it is in our nature to do so. Only inhumane action has doomed our climate.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    None of that requires meaningful sacrifice in material standards of living.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      Climate inaction requires tremendous sacrifice in all of our standards of living. So does taxes. It is a very human behavior to give away a little you have in order for other people to enjoy better lives. We do it all the time.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        People in the developing world will not make any sacrifice to their standard of living, which is already low. To the contrary, they will insist on increasing their standard of living. For the developed world to bankroll the green infrastructure of the developing world--at a scale that allows the developing world to continue improving its standard of living, and while continuing their own green energy investment--will require people in the developing world to give away far more than "a little."
        runarberg 4y ago
        Why are you so sure that people wouldn’t agree to that? Do you see consistent polling data across generations indicating this trend? Is the popular opinion against climate relief funds in Europe? Are people in Denmark opposed to revenue from their garbage disposal/ski-hill going to climate relief in other countries? I don’t think so. And more importantly to your point, does polling suggest people are more willing to invest in carbon sequestration technology as a climate action, rather than green infrastructure in foreign countries? Show me these polls, and show me a lasting trend, and I’ll consider your point. As a counter I’d like to offer you that the German population was ready to suffer a deeper energy crisis for harder sanctions with Russia after the Ukraine invasion. Polling was consistent, showing a willingness to accept lower standard of living, if it meant a possibility that a war fought in a poorer country would end sooner. On an individual level participants in a prisoner dilemma studies show a consistent willing to accept a worse deal if it means more people will be better off. Neither psychology nor general polling is on your side. No, the people will accept lower standard of living just fine. The only ones who insist on anything are governments who are consistently unwilling to sacrifice the corporate profits of the rich. And here carbon sequestration works perfectly, as it will take decades for this technology to be mature and rolled out at scale, all the while corporation can keep polluting and keep turning in record profits for their shareholders. Something that people in the ”developed word“ (ugh!) actually generally oppose.

rayiner 4y ago

So the solution isn’t a real solution? You know what’s harder than carbon capture? Re-engineering human nature.

runarberg 4y ago
Has been done multiple times over. Successful examples include global ban on ozone depleting chemicals, multiple standards for international trade, just run of the mill law and policy, human rights, etc. It is in human nature not to destroy our climate, it took extremely wealthy and persistent class of polluters concentrated effort for the past few decades to prevent climate actions from various governments. Human populations—most of which residing in democracies—would have loved for governments to ratify the various treaties that would have saved our climate. As it is in our nature to do so. Only inhumane action has doomed our climate.
- rayiner 4y ago
  None of that requires meaningful sacrifice in material standards of living.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    Climate inaction requires tremendous sacrifice in all of our standards of living. So does taxes. It is a very human behavior to give away a little you have in order for other people to enjoy better lives. We do it all the time.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      People in the developing world will not make any sacrifice to their standard of living, which is already low. To the contrary, they will insist on increasing their standard of living. For the developed world to bankroll the green infrastructure of the developing world--at a scale that allows the developing world to continue improving its standard of living, and while continuing their own green energy investment--will require people in the developing world to give away far more than "a little."
      - runarberg 4y ago
        Why are you so sure that people wouldn’t agree to that? Do you see consistent polling data across generations indicating this trend? Is the popular opinion against climate relief funds in Europe? Are people in Denmark opposed to revenue from their garbage disposal/ski-hill going to climate relief in other countries? I don’t think so. And more importantly to your point, does polling suggest people are more willing to invest in carbon sequestration technology as a climate action, rather than green infrastructure in foreign countries? Show me these polls, and show me a lasting trend, and I’ll consider your point. As a counter I’d like to offer you that the German population was ready to suffer a deeper energy crisis for harder sanctions with Russia after the Ukraine invasion. Polling was consistent, showing a willingness to accept lower standard of living, if it meant a possibility that a war fought in a poorer country would end sooner. On an individual level participants in a prisoner dilemma studies show a consistent willing to accept a worse deal if it means more people will be better off. Neither psychology nor general polling is on your side. No, the people will accept lower standard of living just fine. The only ones who insist on anything are governments who are consistently unwilling to sacrifice the corporate profits of the rich. And here carbon sequestration works perfectly, as it will take decades for this technology to be mature and rolled out at scale, all the while corporation can keep polluting and keep turning in record profits for their shareholders. Something that people in the ”developed word“ (ugh!) actually generally oppose.