7 ms·

It is. A modern instantiation of buying indulgences from the Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

It is. A modern instantiation of buying indulgences from the Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence A hug part of the power of religions, such as christianity or ESG, is that it provides a mechanism to allow normal people to engage in evil but feel forgiven or justified. "If someone can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities."

Dylan16807 3y ago
Getting some carbon out of the air isn't an absurdity. There are lots of evils that can easily be undone (in multiples!) with cash. Like littering.
- anonporridge 3y ago
  Getting fossil fuel sourced carbon permanently out of the atmospheric carbon cycle with currently available tech (i.e. planting trees doesn't work because they burn and decompose) is an absurdity. Perhaps the best you can do is mitigate warming factors, like investing in burning previously vented methane, but that might be risking triggering a Cobra Effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina... There's no realistic tech on the horizon that can actually reverse novel carbon emissions. Even if we had that kind of carbon capture tech, we would likely need to devote at least as much energy as we got in aggregate from all our fossil fuel burning human civilization captured over the past century to the project. We're several orders of magnitude in renewable and nuclear generation fleets away from that possibility. The adults in the room aren't talking about reversing carbon pollution on human timescales anymore. They're talking about planetary heat engineering to adapt to a more densely insulated Earth. That means adapting to a changing environment on the ground, as well as possibly limiting the amount of solar energy entering the system in the first place. Humanity is entering childhood's end. We can't depend on our mother to do all the work of providing a safe cradle for us anymore. We either grow up and take ownership by proactively managing our environment, or we die. The teenage years are usually painful.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > at least as much energy as we got in aggregate from all our fossil fuel burning human civilization captured over the past century to the project. We're several orders of magnitude in renewable and nuclear generation fleets away from that possibility. Several orders of magnitude? That's not right at all. If we more or less stopped emitting carbon, and devoted just 2x our current renewable and nuclear production to capture, paying "as much energy as we got", we'd be removing it 1/3 as fast as we emitted it, which is a pretty good pace. Even if you include the growth to replace all current energy use, you don't even need a single order of magnitude. Also it's entirely possible today to do things like make carbon-bearing liquids and stick them in a dead oil well, using local solar power to run the equipment. Something doesn't have to scale to the entire planet to be a real thing that some entities could pay for and legitimately be net negative on carbon. Geoengineering is almost certainly more cost-effective, but that's a different issue. Paying for $5 of cleanup every time you toss a piece of litter isn't cost-effective either, but it does legitimately improve things.
    - jamie_ca 3y ago
      World renewable at around 12% * in 2022 [1], Nuclear is 9%. "2x current renewable and nuclear" for reclamation involves tripling current installations, and then it's another nearly 5x increase on current installations just to "stop emitting carbon". Agreed with you that 7x isn't "several orders of magnitude" but it's certainly not happening anytime soon either. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?facet=none https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... * "electricity production", probably excludes direct-use such as vehicle transportation
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Right, so you agree with my math? They were talking about just the energy to capture, so I gave that number first, followed by the number to do both. > Agreed with you that 7x isn't "several orders of magnitude" but it's certainly not happening anytime soon either. The hard part of that 7x is switching our current energy uses. It's not the extra power. And a reliable grid with that many renewables should make lots of extra power as a side effect.
zigzag312 3y ago
Fun analogy, but the link you provided seems to contradict your interpretation: > An indulgence does not forgive the guilt of sin, nor does it provide release from the eternal punishment associated with unforgiven mortal sins. The Catholic Church teaches that indulgences relieve only the temporal punishment resulting from the effect of sin ... an indulgence is not a permit to commit sin, a pardon of future sin, nor a guarantee of salvation for oneself or for another.

Dylan16807 3y ago

Getting some carbon out of the air isn't an absurdity. There are lots of evils that can easily be undone (in multiples!) with cash. Like littering.

anonporridge 3y ago
Getting fossil fuel sourced carbon permanently out of the atmospheric carbon cycle with currently available tech (i.e. planting trees doesn't work because they burn and decompose) is an absurdity. Perhaps the best you can do is mitigate warming factors, like investing in burning previously vented methane, but that might be risking triggering a Cobra Effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina... There's no realistic tech on the horizon that can actually reverse novel carbon emissions. Even if we had that kind of carbon capture tech, we would likely need to devote at least as much energy as we got in aggregate from all our fossil fuel burning human civilization captured over the past century to the project. We're several orders of magnitude in renewable and nuclear generation fleets away from that possibility. The adults in the room aren't talking about reversing carbon pollution on human timescales anymore. They're talking about planetary heat engineering to adapt to a more densely insulated Earth. That means adapting to a changing environment on the ground, as well as possibly limiting the amount of solar energy entering the system in the first place. Humanity is entering childhood's end. We can't depend on our mother to do all the work of providing a safe cradle for us anymore. We either grow up and take ownership by proactively managing our environment, or we die. The teenage years are usually painful.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > at least as much energy as we got in aggregate from all our fossil fuel burning human civilization captured over the past century to the project. We're several orders of magnitude in renewable and nuclear generation fleets away from that possibility. Several orders of magnitude? That's not right at all. If we more or less stopped emitting carbon, and devoted just 2x our current renewable and nuclear production to capture, paying "as much energy as we got", we'd be removing it 1/3 as fast as we emitted it, which is a pretty good pace. Even if you include the growth to replace all current energy use, you don't even need a single order of magnitude. Also it's entirely possible today to do things like make carbon-bearing liquids and stick them in a dead oil well, using local solar power to run the equipment. Something doesn't have to scale to the entire planet to be a real thing that some entities could pay for and legitimately be net negative on carbon. Geoengineering is almost certainly more cost-effective, but that's a different issue. Paying for $5 of cleanup every time you toss a piece of litter isn't cost-effective either, but it does legitimately improve things.
  - jamie_ca 3y ago
    World renewable at around 12% * in 2022 [1], Nuclear is 9%. "2x current renewable and nuclear" for reclamation involves tripling current installations, and then it's another nearly 5x increase on current installations just to "stop emitting carbon". Agreed with you that 7x isn't "several orders of magnitude" but it's certainly not happening anytime soon either. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?facet=none https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... * "electricity production", probably excludes direct-use such as vehicle transportation
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Right, so you agree with my math? They were talking about just the energy to capture, so I gave that number first, followed by the number to do both. > Agreed with you that 7x isn't "several orders of magnitude" but it's certainly not happening anytime soon either. The hard part of that 7x is switching our current energy uses. It's not the extra power. And a reliable grid with that many renewables should make lots of extra power as a side effect.

zigzag312 3y ago

Fun analogy, but the link you provided seems to contradict your interpretation: > An indulgence does not forgive the guilt of sin, nor does it provide release from the eternal punishment associated with unforgiven mortal sins. The Catholic Church teaches that indulgences relieve only the temporal punishment resulting from the effect of sin ... an indulgence is not a permit to commit sin, a pardon of future sin, nor a guarantee of salvation for oneself or for another.