4 ms·

While that is fine, it seems like we should also continue to decarbonize right? I'm personally all for geoengineering solutions, but even that is just a bandai

by pfisch 3y ago

While that is fine, it seems like we should also continue to decarbonize right? I'm personally all for geoengineering solutions, but even that is just a bandaid. We do need to address the core problem here. We are having record high heat almost every day it seems like. Eventually it will get so hot the problems will become extreme, possibly beyond our ability to continue to mass produce food.

intrasight 3y ago
Why do you say that geoengineering is just a bandaid? The planet is heated by the sun and by nothing else that I'm aware of. Geoengineering is really the only solution. There's no likely plan to decarbonize.
- Aloha 3y ago
  That's my argument, I see no realistic path to decarbonization. I'd think we should eliminate fossil fuel consumption for base load power generation, but I'm not sure we can go much further than that.
  - intrasight 3y ago
    Fossil fuels will be consumed as long as there is someone who benefits from its consumption. The collective "we" have very little control over that.
    - Aloha 3y ago
      Thats kinda glib - One, the people who benefit from fossil fuel consumption are too diffuse to easily tamp down on. Two, we cannot replace fossil fuels in certain applications. Three, even all the green technology will need lubrication from something, unless we plan on moving back to whale oil (not exactly a renewable resource), we're stuck with oil based lubrication. Silicone use can be expanded, but it's not a 1:1 replacement for most oil based products. Burnable fuel is still a byproduct of this production. Four, we cannot replace non lubricant petrochemical production at all, oil will still need to come out of the ground, and we will have fuel as a byproduct of that as well. Fuel will continue to be available at a minimum as a byproduct of lubricant and petrochemical production, so while I think we can eliminate at least 50% of fossil fuel consumption - I just see no way to get to 100%. Getting to that 50% requires a whole lot more nuclear power than we have been willing to build.
      - intrasight 3y ago
        I'm just stating an economic reality. Unless global societies are willing to pay the owners of oil reserves to keep that oil in the ground, then that oil will be pumped out of the ground. So any transition away from oil will have to include that very high price to pay them off for a very long time.
        pfisch 3y ago
        Oil could potentially get priced out for most uses in the next 10-15 years.
- pfisch 3y ago
  Because it will be really expensive and likely have a bunch of additional downsides to continuously release huge amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere to deflect the sun. Also it will just keep getting worse and worse if we don't stop releasing CO2.

by pfisch 3y ago

intrasight 3y ago

Why do you say that geoengineering is just a bandaid? The planet is heated by the sun and by nothing else that I'm aware of. Geoengineering is really the only solution. There's no likely plan to decarbonize.

Aloha 3y ago
That's my argument, I see no realistic path to decarbonization. I'd think we should eliminate fossil fuel consumption for base load power generation, but I'm not sure we can go much further than that.
- intrasight 3y ago
  Fossil fuels will be consumed as long as there is someone who benefits from its consumption. The collective "we" have very little control over that.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    Thats kinda glib - One, the people who benefit from fossil fuel consumption are too diffuse to easily tamp down on. Two, we cannot replace fossil fuels in certain applications. Three, even all the green technology will need lubrication from something, unless we plan on moving back to whale oil (not exactly a renewable resource), we're stuck with oil based lubrication. Silicone use can be expanded, but it's not a 1:1 replacement for most oil based products. Burnable fuel is still a byproduct of this production. Four, we cannot replace non lubricant petrochemical production at all, oil will still need to come out of the ground, and we will have fuel as a byproduct of that as well. Fuel will continue to be available at a minimum as a byproduct of lubricant and petrochemical production, so while I think we can eliminate at least 50% of fossil fuel consumption - I just see no way to get to 100%. Getting to that 50% requires a whole lot more nuclear power than we have been willing to build.
    - intrasight 3y ago
      I'm just stating an economic reality. Unless global societies are willing to pay the owners of oil reserves to keep that oil in the ground, then that oil will be pumped out of the ground. So any transition away from oil will have to include that very high price to pay them off for a very long time.
      - pfisch 3y ago
        Oil could potentially get priced out for most uses in the next 10-15 years.
pfisch 3y ago
Because it will be really expensive and likely have a bunch of additional downsides to continuously release huge amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere to deflect the sun. Also it will just keep getting worse and worse if we don't stop releasing CO2.