4 ms·

> No, the cheapest are renewables. Renewables are cheap most of the time, so we should build lots of them. The interesting question is what to do when the weat

by p1mrx 3y ago

> No, the cheapest are renewables. Renewables are cheap most of the time, so we should build lots of them. The interesting question is what to do when the weather is bad. Currently the answer is to burn fossil fuels. We need to stop doing that. > You seem to be treating this as a moral issue. No, it's a physics issue. Every gram of CO2 we put into the air, someone in the future needs to remove at great expense. There is no reward for solving 80% of the problem and cooking our civilization a bit slower.

mcpackieh 3y ago
> There is no reward for solving 80% of the problem and cooking our civilization a bit slower. Heh. The older generations said "we'll be dead by then so it doesn't matter." Now younger generations are thinking along the lines of "If we can delay it until after I'm dead, that'll do."
- dale_glass 3y ago
  Nonsense. Perfection is the enemy of "good enough". There are carbon sinks on the planet, for one. We don't need to convert ourselves into some species of tree elves magically in tune with nature. We just need to be a lot better than we are now, which is a good deal easier. And yes, delaying the problem has a huge value. Because stuff takes time to build, and theoretical stuff takes a long time to develop. If you think nuclear or fusion have something to offer, then time is a huge boon to you. If we need to convert everything NOW, then there's not even a point of thinking about nuclear, it just can't be built fast enough. Let alone fusion. Certainly I wouldn't say no to complete carbon neutrality world-wide. But given how things are it's clear that this is an unrealistic goal on a short/medium term. But that doesn't mean there aren't big improvements we can't make.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Just gotta delay it until after you're dead, then it's future peoples problem to solve amirite.
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      I've still a got of life left, hopefully. So I do hope for a fix in my lifetime. Just not very soon either, that's not realistic.

by p1mrx 3y ago

mcpackieh 3y ago

> There is no reward for solving 80% of the problem and cooking our civilization a bit slower. Heh. The older generations said "we'll be dead by then so it doesn't matter." Now younger generations are thinking along the lines of "If we can delay it until after I'm dead, that'll do."

dale_glass 3y ago
Nonsense. Perfection is the enemy of "good enough". There are carbon sinks on the planet, for one. We don't need to convert ourselves into some species of tree elves magically in tune with nature. We just need to be a lot better than we are now, which is a good deal easier. And yes, delaying the problem has a huge value. Because stuff takes time to build, and theoretical stuff takes a long time to develop. If you think nuclear or fusion have something to offer, then time is a huge boon to you. If we need to convert everything NOW, then there's not even a point of thinking about nuclear, it just can't be built fast enough. Let alone fusion. Certainly I wouldn't say no to complete carbon neutrality world-wide. But given how things are it's clear that this is an unrealistic goal on a short/medium term. But that doesn't mean there aren't big improvements we can't make.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Just gotta delay it until after you're dead, then it's future peoples problem to solve amirite.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    I've still a got of life left, hopefully. So I do hope for a fix in my lifetime. Just not very soon either, that's not realistic.