6 ms·
> but spread out across many willing nations Right after you just wrote off international cooperation to reduce emissions?
by kuhewa 3y ago
> but spread out across many willing nations
Right after you just wrote off international cooperation to reduce emissions?
- leereeves 3y agoWe don't have to convince every nation to contribute to carbon capture. OTOH, reducing emissions demands cooperation from everyone.
- kuhewa 3y agoNo it doesn't. e.g. the top three countries already emit about 50% of global CO2 annually
- leereeves 3y agoBecause 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 agoThe top three countries are not exactly known for getting along or adopting policies that help each other.
- kuhewa 3y agoWe 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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?