4 ms·

Commenting on a few points from the article > Don’t be fooled. It’s mostly a distraction from what we really need to do right now: phase out fossil fuels and d

Commenting on a few points from the article > Don’t be fooled. It’s mostly a distraction from what we really need to do right now: phase out fossil fuels and deploy more effective climate solutions. This is a false dichotomy. I’m yet to find a person that claims these solutions will be enough. It’s just a piece of the puzzle. > First, industrial carbon capture projects are far too small to matter. > Second, they are far too expensive, costing thousands of dollars for every ton of CO2 removed. To anyone who treats these kinds of arguments seriously, I highly recommend reading „Why Internet win’t catch on” - a serious article from Newsweek from 1999 ( https://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306 https://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirv... ). We don’t know if CCS will scale, but we should keep exploring every avenue possible. Especially when we know that certain in certain fields (agriculture, air travel) it will be close to impossible to get to net zero without carbon capture. Also, if we manage to get the costs of CCS down to €100-200 or so, we can switch from carbon taxation to just requiring companies to be carbon neutral, period. Right now we are in this limbo where we can’t tax carbon polluters as much as it takes to clean up (because the economy would collapse and the poorest people would suffer the most), and we end up charging arbitrary amounts that are not enough to clean up the mess, but we hope are enough to limit the co2 footprint. Also, replying ad hominem to an article that is ad hominem as well - people who are against CCS are people who are degrowth and just want to get rid of technology altogether. The people that are privileged enough to be able to ignore all the good that technology has brought to developing nationa.

godelski 3y ago
> I’m yet to find a person that claims these solutions will be enough. It’s just a piece of the puzzle. I know people that believe this, but they aren't scientists. I know quite a few climate scientists and none believe eliminating fossil fuels is enough. I've also never met one that is actually against CCS either, just differing arguments about how resources should be spent which is far more nuanced. Discussion is more complicated around nuclear but maybe I shouldn't bring that up. Its complicated so lots of "experts" on both sides get a lot of information wrong and passionately argue points that are inaccurate. I think around any complex topic -- which absolutely includes climate -- we need to adapt better language and often should probably shut up and listen to the experts. Where experts are not the people you see on the news (a whole other problem I don't want to go into). I get wanting to make things clearer by simplifying them but you can only simplify so much without losing necessary complexity. The problem as old as time is that lies are unbounded in simplicity while truth has a lower bound in complexity. If you're passionate, you gotta put in the time to gain that knowledge, not just the time to expend your passionate energy. The problem is that fighting misinformation with misinformation (even unintentional) provides an easy tool for your adversaries to discredit you. You no longer can claim to be founded in the basis of science/logic/facts/whatever you want to call it. It just becomes trivial to discredit and you perpetuate the tribalism. Articles like this even increase tribalism as it splits supporters of decarbonization and even people who want to eliminate fossil fuels. Because now we have to have this discussion instead of the important ones about decarbonization.
miguelazo 3y ago
>It’s just a piece of the puzzle. The bottom line is that every dollar wasted on these inferior technologies/strategies is one not spent on more promising avenues. It's a simple matter of opportunity cost, even beyond the (valid) distraction angle.
drewcoo 3y ago
>> Don’t be fooled. It’s mostly a distraction from what we really need to do right now: phase out fossil fuels and deploy more effective climate solutions. > This is a false dichotomy. I’m yet to find a person that claims these solutions will be enough. It’s just a piece of the puzzle. 1) That's not a dichotomy because it's an AND not an XOR. So it's not a false dichotomy. 2) "Deploy more effective climate solutions" seems awfully open-ended. How is that "a piece?" I would argue that the phrase means roughly "actually solve the problem(s)," which would also be a complete solution. > Also, replying ad hominem to an article that is ad hominem as well - people who are against CCS are people who are degrowth and just want to get rid of technology altogether. 3) Making a claim about what people believe or how they act is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem attacks the person rather than the argument. Best of luck to anyone cramming for a philosophy final next week!

godelski 3y ago

> I’m yet to find a person that claims these solutions will be enough. It’s just a piece of the puzzle. I know people that believe this, but they aren't scientists. I know quite a few climate scientists and none believe eliminating fossil fuels is enough. I've also never met one that is actually against CCS either, just differing arguments about how resources should be spent which is far more nuanced. Discussion is more complicated around nuclear but maybe I shouldn't bring that up. Its complicated so lots of "experts" on both sides get a lot of information wrong and passionately argue points that are inaccurate. I think around any complex topic -- which absolutely includes climate -- we need to adapt better language and often should probably shut up and listen to the experts. Where experts are not the people you see on the news (a whole other problem I don't want to go into). I get wanting to make things clearer by simplifying them but you can only simplify so much without losing necessary complexity. The problem as old as time is that lies are unbounded in simplicity while truth has a lower bound in complexity. If you're passionate, you gotta put in the time to gain that knowledge, not just the time to expend your passionate energy. The problem is that fighting misinformation with misinformation (even unintentional) provides an easy tool for your adversaries to discredit you. You no longer can claim to be founded in the basis of science/logic/facts/whatever you want to call it. It just becomes trivial to discredit and you perpetuate the tribalism. Articles like this even increase tribalism as it splits supporters of decarbonization and even people who want to eliminate fossil fuels. Because now we have to have this discussion instead of the important ones about decarbonization.

miguelazo 3y ago

>It’s just a piece of the puzzle. The bottom line is that every dollar wasted on these inferior technologies/strategies is one not spent on more promising avenues. It's a simple matter of opportunity cost, even beyond the (valid) distraction angle.

drewcoo 3y ago

>> Don’t be fooled. It’s mostly a distraction from what we really need to do right now: phase out fossil fuels and deploy more effective climate solutions. > This is a false dichotomy. I’m yet to find a person that claims these solutions will be enough. It’s just a piece of the puzzle. 1) That's not a dichotomy because it's an AND not an XOR. So it's not a false dichotomy. 2) "Deploy more effective climate solutions" seems awfully open-ended. How is that "a piece?" I would argue that the phrase means roughly "actually solve the problem(s)," which would also be a complete solution. > Also, replying ad hominem to an article that is ad hominem as well - people who are against CCS are people who are degrowth and just want to get rid of technology altogether. 3) Making a claim about what people believe or how they act is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem attacks the person rather than the argument. Best of luck to anyone cramming for a philosophy final next week!