17 ms·

At which point do you think humanity will start seriously thinking about radical solutions? Such as detonating thermonuclear weapons to throw enough dust above

At which point do you think humanity will start seriously thinking about radical solutions? Such as detonating thermonuclear weapons to throw enough dust above the troposphere to cool the planet down? I'm thinking we're still really far away. Migration from areas that become uninhabitable is still weak. And it doesn't look like any state that has substantial military/commercial/political power is interested in starting a fuss about it. Germany's Green party, probably the strongest climate centric party in the world, somehow thinks that potential nuclear reactor problems are just as bad as global warming.

hanniabu 3y ago
Probably never, the billionaires causing the issues can just create climate controlled bubbles to live in with the best technology for producing their own energy, clean water, and food. As long as they're able to run away from the problems then they'll never stop taking. Not to mention their lifetime won't get that bad on the scheme of things and they'll just love in parts of the world less affected.
- pipes 3y ago
  How are billionaires causing climate change?
  - nomel 3y ago
    They run the companies that we throw our money at.
  - jl6 3y ago
    It gives some people comfort to think that complex problems have simple solutions. If it’s just the fault of the billionaires, that’s a small group that can be relatively easily targeted. The alternative is facing the uncomfortable truth that climate change is the aggregate of small decisions made every day by every human, and there is no single action that will address it.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      Climate change is a symptom of overshoot of the carrying capacity our our environment. The financial system is based on growth, with the majority of money (97% IIRC) being debts we must repay with interest. This leads to exponential growth, which is unsustainable in a finite environment (thus overshooting the carrying capacity). https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_accel-12graph-SE.png https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_acc... Billionaires are simply skilled players amassing virtual wealth in someone else's computer by extracting existing resources. To really solve this, we must change the game, diminish ourselves and eliminate the pressures of exponential growth.
      - goatlover 3y ago
        It's not clear why we need to do this when the alternative is decarbonizing using cleaner technologies, then going heavy on carbon capture once that technology matures. Carrying capacity isn't fixed, it changes depending on how we produce food and other goods. Energy isn't fixed either, because we have the sun, which can provide all the energy we need short of a future science fiction scenario where we outgrow the solar system. I don't think that's a real concern right now. And even in a science fiction scenario where we become a type 2 civilization, it's not clear that's a bad thing assuming we can expand to nearby star systems. Robin Hanson's Grabby Alien solution to the Fermi Paradox suggests this is what civilizations will do, and we might as well grab up as much real estate until we come into contact with the other expanding spheres of alien expansion (granted this is very long term).
        myshpa 3y ago
        > when the alternative is decarbonizing using cleaner technologies There (might not be) enough fossil fuels left, and EROI is falling fast, so the question is whether we'd able to do this before the energy runs out and our economy will be forcibly reduced by nature. > carbon capture once that technology matures I'm worried that's just a technological pipedream. No such technology will probably exist for decades at the scale needed. We'd need millions of such factories. In fact, we already have such "technology", it's called forests ... but we're not doing that either. > Carrying capacity isn't fixed No, it's not. We've extended it in the past, but now it seems that it started decline ... and might enter freefall soon. I'd suggest this for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc > energy isn't fixed either Yes, and it's heating the planet and oceans 100x more than what we're consuming now. 5 atomic bombs every second now, is it? I'm aware that 254x254 km2 of solar panels would be enough for all our energy needs (except storage) ... but we're far from that. Even in the most optimistic scenarios we're targeting 25-30% of renewable energy in 2050 ... not really enough. > science fiction scenario where we become a type 2 civilization I'd like us to get there. But we might as well be at the end of the runway, looking at the great filter with our own eyes right now.
  - croes 3y ago
    How do you think they made the money? Growing trees?
lbeltrame 3y ago
> At which point do you think humanity will start seriously thinking about radical solutions? Given the push politically for solutions that are going to impact negatively the lives of millions of people "for their own good", I think some are already pushing for "radical solutions". Luckily, there's pushback this time.
danjac 3y ago
The German Greens are slowly inching towards nuclear, now the original 1980s membership are dying off and the Gazprom funding is running out: https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-lay-out-nuclear-power-position-amid-federal-government-infighting/a-63449846 https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-lay-out-nuclear-power-po...
- croes 3y ago
  Still no solution for nuclear waste, still depend on external water cooling, security can't handle threads like cyber attacks and airplane crashes. That generation of power plants isn't really helping and new ones need a lot of time to build and produce lots of CO2 in the process.
  - danjac 3y ago
    All true, but right now those risks pale in comparison to the ongoing disasters caused by fossil fuels.
    - croes 3y ago
      Nuclear is only an intermediate solution but many treat like the final one. It isn't helpful averting one problem to create another one.
      - danjac 3y ago
        If you are wandering the desert, dying of thirst, and you find a bottle of Coke, you should probably drink it and not worry too much about getting diabetes.
        croes 3y ago
        What about a bottle with Vibrio cholerae?
        H8crilA 3y ago
audessuscest 3y ago
17° this morning in Kiev ;)
- H8crilA 3y ago
  It's Kyiv, not Kiev :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyivNotKiev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyivNotKiev
- croes 3y ago
  World hunger is on the rise. I'm full, 8 o'clock in Paris.
  - audessuscest 3y ago
    > leaving earth in uncharted territory "uncharted" is the keyword here, do you understand what it really means?
    - croes 3y ago
      Do you know that Earth is more than Kyiv?
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
The right has been accused of denialism for decades at this point, but any time solutions they might be in favor of are proposed, the left gives us hysterics about how geo-engineering is too dangerous to contemplate. This leads me to believe that they're lying about how important it is to them. Supposedly, it is a world-ending scenario... at least when it comes to wrecking economies. But the moment real fixes are discussed it's "oh no, we can't do that". Considering how much they've had hardons for economic meddling for a century and a half at this point, why should I believe that it's anything other than a ploy to do what they've always wanted?
- defrost 3y ago
  > But the moment real fixes are discussed Yeah, Nuh. "detonating thermonuclear weapons to throw enough dust above the troposphere to cool the planet down" isn't a real solution, and we've done this before .. leaving aside the two atomic detonations at the end of WWII and looking just at the 2,000 test detonations since (many larger, much larger, than the H & N explosions) the absolute worst case examples were ground level blasts that lifted material into the sky. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo Better fixes include inflating bubbles between the earth and sun to reduce incoming light .. at least that one is reversable and fine tuneable. Or, you know, maybe consuming less and winding down a bit on the baby making?
  - zelphirkalt 3y ago
    Woa! Be careful! Baby making seems like a holy activity for some people on HN and elsewhere. Any time you suggest not having as many children or not making as babies all around the world, some very intelligent person will put words in your mouth and reinterpret your words in bad ways, to be able to call you a murderer or similar. Part of the problem. And of course when it comes to making babies almost everyone thinks, that their child or they themselves are special and it is OK to have more than one child for them. Especially comfortable when they already have two or more children, or for some ego reason want more children than proposed. Oh and never dare to mention China and one child policy either in this context, or the consequences for the world, if that policy had not existed.
seu 3y ago
> At which point do you think humanity will start seriously thinking about radical solutions? You mean, like, switching to a vegan diet, using public transport and stop flying? Those seem radical enough for most people in the Northern Hemisphere. > Such as detonating thermonuclear weapons to throw enough dust above the troposphere to cool the planet down? Weird world, one in which people can consider drastically changing the composition of the atmosphere, affecting all forms of life over the planet at the same time, instead of purchasing less from Amazon and doing some changes in their diet and holiday plans.
- jgilias 3y ago
  Individual decisions like that are only good for making yourself feel good about doing something, but it’s close to meaningless when it comes to actually solving it. It’s systemic solutions that are needed. Some of those may include disincentivizing consumption. But it’s also not simple given that in many places there’s serious pushback against that. And also the economic cost. Everything is interwoven. I wish people stopped pretending that this is just a matter of going vegan.
  - seu 3y ago
    Systemic solutions are also needed. And switching to public transport or flying less doesn't happen without them, nowhere in my comment did I say that. My point is about the fact that we already know and have most of the solutions: less consumption, less emissions, less destruction of our environment. Yet, most people with decision power (be it as individuals, as heads of governments or companies) refuse to accept and follow them. Instead, many prefer to propose global-scale, geo-modifications whose results are unknown and potentially more dangerous.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    Removing subsidies on meat production and flying are the systemic variants of those individual choices. People would be vegan no-flyers in no time.
    - MandieD 3y ago
bmitc 3y ago
The "radical" solutions are not just throwing more technology at the problems. That's how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place. The solution is to stop mindless consumption. We use the same material to wrap and bake food and drink unhealthy drinks as we do to build airplanes. We use plastic for use cases that take place over seconds and minutes and then throw it away. We drive everywhere because of poor urban design. We use plastic to carry food home from stores and restaurants. We fill our homes with plastic, metal, wood, and electronic junk, very little of it actually needed. Mindless consumption makes the U.S. waste 1/3 of the food produced every year. 96% of that goes directly into landfills. It is literally throwing energy away, energy that we sapped away from the ground and ecosystems. Only 4% of the waste is composted. Full adoption of composting food waste and reducing it in total could bring emissions down by as much as high single digits or low teens percentages. We also need greater wealth equality, which brings education and health equality as well. It's almost silly how simple the real solutions are. I planted milkweed last year, or rather let the milkweed that the previous owner would put mulch over. Surprise, we have monarch caterpillars this year. There are real consequences to our actions, and if we reverse them, we get real consequences back.
- H8crilA 3y ago
  Have you ever heard of poorer countries? Do you think that over the next decades they'll pursue basic life luxuries such as hospitals, brick and concrete houses, steel reinforced cities, asphalt roads, a car per family? It helps to look at world's energy production and consumption breakdowns.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is or what you're responding to.
    - H8crilA 3y ago
      To the comment above. The point is that fewer widgets is not going to cut it unless you force the poor countries to stay poor. I assumed people know world's energy consumption breakdown (cement, food, heating, electrical energy, chemical processes, ...), and what does that imply if most of the world catches up to more or less developed levels. If not I recommend starting education there.
ant6n 3y ago
Radical solutions are known but don’t involve risky Matrix-Style geo-engineering: very heavy taxation on CO2 emissions, 3x-4x those taxes for aviation emissions (due to radiative forcing), ban on ICE vehicles, successive ban on heating other than heat pumps, phase out of non renewable energy generation, in particular coal and gas. Parts of these are being tried by the Greens in Germany (part of govt), but everyone is getting totally histerical, with all sorts of influence groups coming out of their holes and trying to shut down all the efforts.
- numbers_guy 3y ago
  If those policies were global it would be fair. Doing it only in Germany is just making the Germans poorer.
  - ant6n 3y ago
    Germany as one of the richest nations, and one of the largest cumulative polluters, should be a role model here. If everybody needs to do it, somebody needs to start.
    - numbers_guy 3y ago
      The role model nonsense, I never got that. How is that supposed to do anything. As for the comparative wealth, I already earn 1/3 of what I would in the US, my home is smaller, I don't own a car and I have no A/C. And now I should also be taxed even more, while Americans who already pollute 10x as much keep doing as they please. Fuck that. That's fucking unfair and I am not willing to do that.
      - ant6n 3y ago
        Crying about supposed unfairness, hows that supposed to do anything. But it is funny how people who personally make choices that reduce co2 fight against policies that would apply to everyone (well, at least in the same country, given there’s no world government).
coffeebeqn 3y ago
Wouldn’t a nuclear winter make things much worse by blocking sunlight and causing massive famine? That’s probably why
tuatoru 3y ago
Accelerated weathering of olivine mineral rocks is the easy, safe way to cool the planet. Mine 'em, crush 'em fine, spread the dust in the ocean. The numbers say that even if the whole operation was powered by coal, it'd sequester 20 times as much CO2 as it generated. Use natural gas or other electricity generation for some of it, and the ratio improves dramatically. Costs less than a $trillion a year which is one percent of global GDP. Edit: it's the easy, safe, cheap thing to do; and we won't do it. 1. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/olivine-weathering https://worksinprogress.co/issue/olivine-weathering

hanniabu 3y ago

Probably never, the billionaires causing the issues can just create climate controlled bubbles to live in with the best technology for producing their own energy, clean water, and food. As long as they're able to run away from the problems then they'll never stop taking. Not to mention their lifetime won't get that bad on the scheme of things and they'll just love in parts of the world less affected.

pipes 3y ago
How are billionaires causing climate change?
- nomel 3y ago
  They run the companies that we throw our money at.
- jl6 3y ago
  It gives some people comfort to think that complex problems have simple solutions. If it’s just the fault of the billionaires, that’s a small group that can be relatively easily targeted. The alternative is facing the uncomfortable truth that climate change is the aggregate of small decisions made every day by every human, and there is no single action that will address it.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Climate change is a symptom of overshoot of the carrying capacity our our environment. The financial system is based on growth, with the majority of money (97% IIRC) being debts we must repay with interest. This leads to exponential growth, which is unsustainable in a finite environment (thus overshooting the carrying capacity). https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_accel-12graph-SE.png https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_acc... Billionaires are simply skilled players amassing virtual wealth in someone else's computer by extracting existing resources. To really solve this, we must change the game, diminish ourselves and eliminate the pressures of exponential growth.
    - goatlover 3y ago
      It's not clear why we need to do this when the alternative is decarbonizing using cleaner technologies, then going heavy on carbon capture once that technology matures. Carrying capacity isn't fixed, it changes depending on how we produce food and other goods. Energy isn't fixed either, because we have the sun, which can provide all the energy we need short of a future science fiction scenario where we outgrow the solar system. I don't think that's a real concern right now. And even in a science fiction scenario where we become a type 2 civilization, it's not clear that's a bad thing assuming we can expand to nearby star systems. Robin Hanson's Grabby Alien solution to the Fermi Paradox suggests this is what civilizations will do, and we might as well grab up as much real estate until we come into contact with the other expanding spheres of alien expansion (granted this is very long term).
      - myshpa 3y ago
        > when the alternative is decarbonizing using cleaner technologies There (might not be) enough fossil fuels left, and EROI is falling fast, so the question is whether we'd able to do this before the energy runs out and our economy will be forcibly reduced by nature. > carbon capture once that technology matures I'm worried that's just a technological pipedream. No such technology will probably exist for decades at the scale needed. We'd need millions of such factories. In fact, we already have such "technology", it's called forests ... but we're not doing that either. > Carrying capacity isn't fixed No, it's not. We've extended it in the past, but now it seems that it started decline ... and might enter freefall soon. I'd suggest this for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc > energy isn't fixed either Yes, and it's heating the planet and oceans 100x more than what we're consuming now. 5 atomic bombs every second now, is it? I'm aware that 254x254 km2 of solar panels would be enough for all our energy needs (except storage) ... but we're far from that. Even in the most optimistic scenarios we're targeting 25-30% of renewable energy in 2050 ... not really enough. > science fiction scenario where we become a type 2 civilization I'd like us to get there. But we might as well be at the end of the runway, looking at the great filter with our own eyes right now.
- croes 3y ago
  How do you think they made the money? Growing trees?

lbeltrame 3y ago

> At which point do you think humanity will start seriously thinking about radical solutions? Given the push politically for solutions that are going to impact negatively the lives of millions of people "for their own good", I think some are already pushing for "radical solutions". Luckily, there's pushback this time.

danjac 3y ago

The German Greens are slowly inching towards nuclear, now the original 1980s membership are dying off and the Gazprom funding is running out: https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-lay-out-nuclear-power-position-amid-federal-government-infighting/a-63449846 https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-lay-out-nuclear-power-po...

croes 3y ago
Still no solution for nuclear waste, still depend on external water cooling, security can't handle threads like cyber attacks and airplane crashes. That generation of power plants isn't really helping and new ones need a lot of time to build and produce lots of CO2 in the process.
- danjac 3y ago
  All true, but right now those risks pale in comparison to the ongoing disasters caused by fossil fuels.
  - croes 3y ago
    Nuclear is only an intermediate solution but many treat like the final one. It isn't helpful averting one problem to create another one.
    - danjac 3y ago
      If you are wandering the desert, dying of thirst, and you find a bottle of Coke, you should probably drink it and not worry too much about getting diabetes.
      - croes 3y ago
        What about a bottle with Vibrio cholerae?
        H8crilA 3y ago

audessuscest 3y ago

17° this morning in Kiev ;)

H8crilA 3y ago
It's Kyiv, not Kiev :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyivNotKiev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyivNotKiev
croes 3y ago
World hunger is on the rise. I'm full, 8 o'clock in Paris.
- audessuscest 3y ago
  > leaving earth in uncharted territory "uncharted" is the keyword here, do you understand what it really means?
  - croes 3y ago
    Do you know that Earth is more than Kyiv?

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

The right has been accused of denialism for decades at this point, but any time solutions they might be in favor of are proposed, the left gives us hysterics about how geo-engineering is too dangerous to contemplate. This leads me to believe that they're lying about how important it is to them. Supposedly, it is a world-ending scenario... at least when it comes to wrecking economies. But the moment real fixes are discussed it's "oh no, we can't do that". Considering how much they've had hardons for economic meddling for a century and a half at this point, why should I believe that it's anything other than a ploy to do what they've always wanted?

defrost 3y ago
> But the moment real fixes are discussed Yeah, Nuh. "detonating thermonuclear weapons to throw enough dust above the troposphere to cool the planet down" isn't a real solution, and we've done this before .. leaving aside the two atomic detonations at the end of WWII and looking just at the 2,000 test detonations since (many larger, much larger, than the H & N explosions) the absolute worst case examples were ground level blasts that lifted material into the sky. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo Better fixes include inflating bubbles between the earth and sun to reduce incoming light .. at least that one is reversable and fine tuneable. Or, you know, maybe consuming less and winding down a bit on the baby making?
- zelphirkalt 3y ago
  Woa! Be careful! Baby making seems like a holy activity for some people on HN and elsewhere. Any time you suggest not having as many children or not making as babies all around the world, some very intelligent person will put words in your mouth and reinterpret your words in bad ways, to be able to call you a murderer or similar. Part of the problem. And of course when it comes to making babies almost everyone thinks, that their child or they themselves are special and it is OK to have more than one child for them. Especially comfortable when they already have two or more children, or for some ego reason want more children than proposed. Oh and never dare to mention China and one child policy either in this context, or the consequences for the world, if that policy had not existed.

seu 3y ago

> At which point do you think humanity will start seriously thinking about radical solutions? You mean, like, switching to a vegan diet, using public transport and stop flying? Those seem radical enough for most people in the Northern Hemisphere. > Such as detonating thermonuclear weapons to throw enough dust above the troposphere to cool the planet down? Weird world, one in which people can consider drastically changing the composition of the atmosphere, affecting all forms of life over the planet at the same time, instead of purchasing less from Amazon and doing some changes in their diet and holiday plans.

jgilias 3y ago
Individual decisions like that are only good for making yourself feel good about doing something, but it’s close to meaningless when it comes to actually solving it. It’s systemic solutions that are needed. Some of those may include disincentivizing consumption. But it’s also not simple given that in many places there’s serious pushback against that. And also the economic cost. Everything is interwoven. I wish people stopped pretending that this is just a matter of going vegan.
- seu 3y ago
  Systemic solutions are also needed. And switching to public transport or flying less doesn't happen without them, nowhere in my comment did I say that. My point is about the fact that we already know and have most of the solutions: less consumption, less emissions, less destruction of our environment. Yet, most people with decision power (be it as individuals, as heads of governments or companies) refuse to accept and follow them. Instead, many prefer to propose global-scale, geo-modifications whose results are unknown and potentially more dangerous.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Removing subsidies on meat production and flying are the systemic variants of those individual choices. People would be vegan no-flyers in no time.
  - MandieD 3y ago

bmitc 3y ago

The "radical" solutions are not just throwing more technology at the problems. That's how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place. The solution is to stop mindless consumption. We use the same material to wrap and bake food and drink unhealthy drinks as we do to build airplanes. We use plastic for use cases that take place over seconds and minutes and then throw it away. We drive everywhere because of poor urban design. We use plastic to carry food home from stores and restaurants. We fill our homes with plastic, metal, wood, and electronic junk, very little of it actually needed. Mindless consumption makes the U.S. waste 1/3 of the food produced every year. 96% of that goes directly into landfills. It is literally throwing energy away, energy that we sapped away from the ground and ecosystems. Only 4% of the waste is composted. Full adoption of composting food waste and reducing it in total could bring emissions down by as much as high single digits or low teens percentages. We also need greater wealth equality, which brings education and health equality as well. It's almost silly how simple the real solutions are. I planted milkweed last year, or rather let the milkweed that the previous owner would put mulch over. Surprise, we have monarch caterpillars this year. There are real consequences to our actions, and if we reverse them, we get real consequences back.

H8crilA 3y ago
Have you ever heard of poorer countries? Do you think that over the next decades they'll pursue basic life luxuries such as hospitals, brick and concrete houses, steel reinforced cities, asphalt roads, a car per family? It helps to look at world's energy production and consumption breakdowns.
- bmitc 3y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is or what you're responding to.
  - H8crilA 3y ago
    To the comment above. The point is that fewer widgets is not going to cut it unless you force the poor countries to stay poor. I assumed people know world's energy consumption breakdown (cement, food, heating, electrical energy, chemical processes, ...), and what does that imply if most of the world catches up to more or less developed levels. If not I recommend starting education there.

ant6n 3y ago

Radical solutions are known but don’t involve risky Matrix-Style geo-engineering: very heavy taxation on CO2 emissions, 3x-4x those taxes for aviation emissions (due to radiative forcing), ban on ICE vehicles, successive ban on heating other than heat pumps, phase out of non renewable energy generation, in particular coal and gas. Parts of these are being tried by the Greens in Germany (part of govt), but everyone is getting totally histerical, with all sorts of influence groups coming out of their holes and trying to shut down all the efforts.

numbers_guy 3y ago
If those policies were global it would be fair. Doing it only in Germany is just making the Germans poorer.
- ant6n 3y ago
  Germany as one of the richest nations, and one of the largest cumulative polluters, should be a role model here. If everybody needs to do it, somebody needs to start.
  - numbers_guy 3y ago
    The role model nonsense, I never got that. How is that supposed to do anything. As for the comparative wealth, I already earn 1/3 of what I would in the US, my home is smaller, I don't own a car and I have no A/C. And now I should also be taxed even more, while Americans who already pollute 10x as much keep doing as they please. Fuck that. That's fucking unfair and I am not willing to do that.
    - ant6n 3y ago
      Crying about supposed unfairness, hows that supposed to do anything. But it is funny how people who personally make choices that reduce co2 fight against policies that would apply to everyone (well, at least in the same country, given there’s no world government).

coffeebeqn 3y ago

Wouldn’t a nuclear winter make things much worse by blocking sunlight and causing massive famine? That’s probably why

tuatoru 3y ago

Accelerated weathering of olivine mineral rocks is the easy, safe way to cool the planet. Mine 'em, crush 'em fine, spread the dust in the ocean. The numbers say that even if the whole operation was powered by coal, it'd sequester 20 times as much CO2 as it generated. Use natural gas or other electricity generation for some of it, and the ratio improves dramatically. Costs less than a $trillion a year which is one percent of global GDP. Edit: it's the easy, safe, cheap thing to do; and we won't do it. 1. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/olivine-weathering https://worksinprogress.co/issue/olivine-weathering