5 ms·

Gore said in that talk that a number of countries are still increasing their production of fossil fuels. There's nothing we can do, short of war, to force othe

Gore said in that talk that a number of countries are still increasing their production of fossil fuels. There's nothing we can do, short of war, to force other countries to stop releasing CO2, so it seems to me that carbon capture is the only solution. As the article says, "That fight of leave it in the ground we're not going to win." The top comment makes effective carbon capture sound impossible, but to put it in perspective, the Interstate Highway System in the US alone used "enough [aggregates] to make 700 mounds the size of the largest Egyptian pyramids."[1] If the numbers here are right, carbon capture would be (very) roughly 2x the size of the IHS, compressed into a single year, and repeated every year. An enormous project, but spread out across many willing nations, and perhaps helped by the fact that CO2 diffuses naturally through the atmosphere and doesn't have to be transported like sand and gravel. Difficult but doable, if the political will existed. 1: https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/50th-anniversary/size-job https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/5...

diogenes4 3y ago
> There's nothing we can do, short of war, to force other countries to stop releasing CO2 Well forcing ultimately ends in forcing violently, so this seems to be a bit tautological. We (and other wealthy nations) can directly subsidize the replacement of carbon emitting processes to the extent possible with the agreement not to build more. This won't happen of course, but the idea that the only way forward is to force people is ridiculous.
kuhewa 3y ago
> but spread out across many willing nations Right after you just wrote off international cooperation to reduce emissions?
- leereeves 3y ago
  We don't have to convince every nation to contribute to carbon capture. OTOH, reducing emissions demands cooperation from everyone.
  - kuhewa 3y ago
    No it doesn't. e.g. the top three countries already emit about 50% of global CO2 annually
    - leereeves 3y ago
      Because wealthy countries pay high prices for fossil fuels, and less wealthy countries can't afford them. If rich countries stop using them and the price falls, there will be a lot of new demand.
    - bluefirebrand 3y ago
      The top three countries are not exactly known for getting along or adopting policies that help each other.
      - kuhewa 3y ago
        We aren't bound by reality in the conservation — the baseline is the likelihood of these countries and others doing ungodly amounts of carbon capture
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Turskarama 3y ago
        The countries which emit the most are also the only ones who could deploy carbon capture on a large scale. The cooperation either happens or it doesn't, but either way carbon capture is significantly less effective than decarbonising.
    - brightlancer 3y ago
      The top three countries _today_, and China is > 2x the US, who is ~ 2x India -- China alone emits 30% of the CO2. How should we force China to stop emitting? India wasn't even in the top 50% 20 years ago -- the nation is developing, they're burning fossil fuels and they're going to keep doing it to bring their people out of poverty. Should they keep their population in poverty? What about other developing nations? Will Nigeria and Indonesia and Pakistan and Brazil decide that they'd rather keep their populations poor than build fossil fuel plants?
Gabrys1 3y ago
Why focus on other countries if most CO2 per capita is produced in the US?
- leereeves 3y ago
  Why focus on CO2 per capita? Total emissions is the measure that affects the climate. The same emissions, spread among more people, would cause the same climate change. And the US only accounts for about 15% of total emissions.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Because people have a right to a decent life. You can't demand Chinese and Indian and African people live without power and AC just because they can't afford state of the art power grids, while smugly living off of more than a hundred years of being ~the only CO2 emitters, on which we've built our way of life (and this includes not just the USA but the EEA and a few other rich countries as well - India especially has lower CO2 emissions per capita than any of the self-proclaimed "green" nations in Europe). And note that the solution for reducing emissions in China and India is relatively simple: commit string-free resources and money to building renewable grids and nuclear instead of coal.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > the solution for reducing emissions in China and India is relatively simple: commit string-free resources and money to building renewable grids and nuclear instead of coal Money is fungible. Subsidising Chinese power means subsidising its military. Given it’s presently a dictatorship, that’s a dangerous proposition. We should focus on decarbonising ourselves. Once our per-capita emissions are lower than others’, we can show them the way.
      - 3y ago
gniv 3y ago
> There's nothing we can do, short of war, to force other countries to stop releasing CO2 That's a good point that is not mentioned enough in these discussions. Basically, we cannot stop other countries from releasing CO2, but we can "steal" their air.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  That is completely false. Try investing a few billion dollars into building renewable power and grids in India, with no strings attached (that is, without retaining ownership or asking for dividends etc), and see if that doesn't stop them from building more coal plants.

diogenes4 3y ago

> There's nothing we can do, short of war, to force other countries to stop releasing CO2 Well forcing ultimately ends in forcing violently, so this seems to be a bit tautological. We (and other wealthy nations) can directly subsidize the replacement of carbon emitting processes to the extent possible with the agreement not to build more. This won't happen of course, but the idea that the only way forward is to force people is ridiculous.

kuhewa 3y ago

> but spread out across many willing nations Right after you just wrote off international cooperation to reduce emissions?

leereeves 3y ago
We don't have to convince every nation to contribute to carbon capture. OTOH, reducing emissions demands cooperation from everyone.
- kuhewa 3y ago
  No it doesn't. e.g. the top three countries already emit about 50% of global CO2 annually
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Because wealthy countries pay high prices for fossil fuels, and less wealthy countries can't afford them. If rich countries stop using them and the price falls, there will be a lot of new demand.
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    The top three countries are not exactly known for getting along or adopting policies that help each other.
    - kuhewa 3y ago
      We aren't bound by reality in the conservation — the baseline is the likelihood of these countries and others doing ungodly amounts of carbon capture
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Turskarama 3y ago
      The countries which emit the most are also the only ones who could deploy carbon capture on a large scale. The cooperation either happens or it doesn't, but either way carbon capture is significantly less effective than decarbonising.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    The top three countries _today_, and China is > 2x the US, who is ~ 2x India -- China alone emits 30% of the CO2. How should we force China to stop emitting? India wasn't even in the top 50% 20 years ago -- the nation is developing, they're burning fossil fuels and they're going to keep doing it to bring their people out of poverty. Should they keep their population in poverty? What about other developing nations? Will Nigeria and Indonesia and Pakistan and Brazil decide that they'd rather keep their populations poor than build fossil fuel plants?

Gabrys1 3y ago

Why focus on other countries if most CO2 per capita is produced in the US?

leereeves 3y ago
Why focus on CO2 per capita? Total emissions is the measure that affects the climate. The same emissions, spread among more people, would cause the same climate change. And the US only accounts for about 15% of total emissions.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  [flagged]
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Because people have a right to a decent life. You can't demand Chinese and Indian and African people live without power and AC just because they can't afford state of the art power grids, while smugly living off of more than a hundred years of being ~the only CO2 emitters, on which we've built our way of life (and this includes not just the USA but the EEA and a few other rich countries as well - India especially has lower CO2 emissions per capita than any of the self-proclaimed "green" nations in Europe). And note that the solution for reducing emissions in China and India is relatively simple: commit string-free resources and money to building renewable grids and nuclear instead of coal.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the solution for reducing emissions in China and India is relatively simple: commit string-free resources and money to building renewable grids and nuclear instead of coal Money is fungible. Subsidising Chinese power means subsidising its military. Given it’s presently a dictatorship, that’s a dangerous proposition. We should focus on decarbonising ourselves. Once our per-capita emissions are lower than others’, we can show them the way.
    - 3y ago

gniv 3y ago

> There's nothing we can do, short of war, to force other countries to stop releasing CO2 That's a good point that is not mentioned enough in these discussions. Basically, we cannot stop other countries from releasing CO2, but we can "steal" their air.

tsimionescu 3y ago
That is completely false. Try investing a few billion dollars into building renewable power and grids in India, with no strings attached (that is, without retaining ownership or asking for dividends etc), and see if that doesn't stop them from building more coal plants.