3 ms·
Meh. Geoengineering is the actual solution, even thought it's politically impossible to voice. See global warming after ships stopped burning sulfur. We're stuc
by radu_floricica 3y ago
Meh. Geoengineering is the actual solution, even thought it's politically impossible to voice. See global warming after ships stopped burning sulfur. We're stuck on "carbon" as if this is the only variable we can control.
A mix of naturalistic fallacy with tribalism, maybe? The politically correct truth is that carbon is the only thing we've ever changed in nature, so it's the proper and safe act to move it back. Any attempt to point out that neither is true gets coded as a political attack and wrongthink.
Either way it's a non issue. AIG or not, we're definitely going to have at least much better ML models allowing for real predictions of interventions. Chances of global warming actually being a problem long term are hovering around zero right now.
- wheelerof4te 3y agoYou can't argue with "the truth" here. Global warming has been a mainstream scarecrow for decades now. In truth, it was just a way to slow down the growth of rival industrialized countries, or countries that are yet to industrialize. By promoting expensive, inefficient "clean" energy sources (but not nuclear!), they are stunting the growth of developing nations.
- radu_floricica 3y agoYou think? To me it looks like it handicaps developed countries more. For one thing, many developing countries simply ignore the limits, or aren't even close to them yet. Also they have much more choice in choosing their technology stack - they can if they want invest in wind and solar and nuclear. First world has lots of money already sunk in old style generation, and needs to replace it - at much higher levels of consumption.