4 ms·

It would help because we have too much CO2 in atmosphere now. It accumulated. If we stopped putting CO2, plants and all the other earth chemical loops would tak

It would help because we have too much CO2 in atmosphere now. It accumulated. If we stopped putting CO2, plants and all the other earth chemical loops would take out that excess carbon. > CO2 feeds plants to grow, which in turn provides more food and habitat for more life. Yeah, unless they can't synthesize it because it's too hot and they didn't had a chance to adjust to new temperatures yet. It takes some time and will happen, but we pump CO2 a little too fast. > In this scenario with China doing the opposite to the rest of the world, there are exactly zero gains for CO2 reduction - far outweighed by the increase in CO2 production. Oh yeah, someone litters on the street, let's all litter and get rid of the trash cans. Alternative solution: we should stop buying from them so they will not generate that co2.

loceng 3y ago
Saying we have "too much CO2 in atmosphere" isn't evidence and historically there was much higher levels, and much more life. And yes, there will be a delay as part of evolutionary process for when plants and wildlife can adapt - for plants that are better adapted or capable of adapting to hotter temperatures-different climate will adjust - so indeed at minimum reducing the pace at minimum can be useful; and deploying technologies to slow down the increase we have arguably bumped up at least a little bit [remember the distance that Earth to the sun we are is the biggest factor of temperatures, and where are we in that 1000s of year cycle at the moment?] will help, but we could also prepare to pollinate and manage new growth areas with plants/life we know can adapt; the US policy makers on the side of believing climate change is a life-or-death urgent consideration want to spend $40+ trillion "fighting" it - so getting simply helping the Earth adapt, which is what we should be doing because it's unknown exactly how much our changing CO2 levels will actually impact things, is a no-brainer to do regardless - to create more life, to maximize it; and I also believe Elon is correct that Earth can sustain another 10x the current human population - however that will require succeeding in battle against industrial complexes and authoritarian wannabes who're involved in regulatory capture. "Alternative solution: we should stop buying from them so they will not generate that co2." Absolutely a good strategy to stop rewarding that behaviour, if that's the best course of action to not destabilize the world too much - which may not be a good idea to potentially force the CCP-China's hand into highly aggressive or bad-harmful behaviour. But do you think the inflationary policy, money borrowing, $34 trillion in debt, and people currently struggling in the US and West in general will be able to handle the massive increase in costs of goods that will happen if that happens?
- yetihehe 3y ago
  > Saying we have "too much CO2 in atmosphere" isn't evidence and historically there was much higher levels, and much more life. We will have more life, but less humans and probably our civilisation will not survive. Apart from that, earth will be fine, so we should do as we please and put as much pollution as we want to?
  - Kerb_ 3y ago
    Well, a bunch of the other dominant species would die too, but "life" referring to the construct of individual contained chemical reactions sustaining themselves will surely continue, which is basically the same thing
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Folks often try on these arguments: it'll cost too much (to save all our lives). Or 'it got terribly hot before so somehow it's natural and ok'. We may survive as a species. But our civilization will not survive the destabilization it causes. E.g. folks depend on fish for a large part of the planet, from coastal waters. Kill the reefs (which we've made a good start on), the coastal ecosystem collpases (california crab anyone?) and not thousands, not millions but hundreds of millions of people starve. Then what? Some kind of global rescue effort? Not hardly. Look at the last wave of 10,000 refugees, how every European country was winging about 'we can't accept a thousand! It's too much!' Now add four zeroes to that number. Get the picture?
  - loceng 3y ago
    "Folks often try on these arguments: it'll cost too much (to save all our lives). Or 'it got terribly hot before so somehow it's natural and ok'." This is a straw man argument. I didn't say it costs too much, I was stating options for how and where money may be better spent. And if you haven't observed yet that the free market - save for regulatory capture - is far more efficient than government at most efficiently distributing resources where needed, then "you" aren't paying enough attention.

loceng 3y ago

Saying we have "too much CO2 in atmosphere" isn't evidence and historically there was much higher levels, and much more life. And yes, there will be a delay as part of evolutionary process for when plants and wildlife can adapt - for plants that are better adapted or capable of adapting to hotter temperatures-different climate will adjust - so indeed at minimum reducing the pace at minimum can be useful; and deploying technologies to slow down the increase we have arguably bumped up at least a little bit [remember the distance that Earth to the sun we are is the biggest factor of temperatures, and where are we in that 1000s of year cycle at the moment?] will help, but we could also prepare to pollinate and manage new growth areas with plants/life we know can adapt; the US policy makers on the side of believing climate change is a life-or-death urgent consideration want to spend $40+ trillion "fighting" it - so getting simply helping the Earth adapt, which is what we should be doing because it's unknown exactly how much our changing CO2 levels will actually impact things, is a no-brainer to do regardless - to create more life, to maximize it; and I also believe Elon is correct that Earth can sustain another 10x the current human population - however that will require succeeding in battle against industrial complexes and authoritarian wannabes who're involved in regulatory capture. "Alternative solution: we should stop buying from them so they will not generate that co2." Absolutely a good strategy to stop rewarding that behaviour, if that's the best course of action to not destabilize the world too much - which may not be a good idea to potentially force the CCP-China's hand into highly aggressive or bad-harmful behaviour. But do you think the inflationary policy, money borrowing, $34 trillion in debt, and people currently struggling in the US and West in general will be able to handle the massive increase in costs of goods that will happen if that happens?

yetihehe 3y ago
> Saying we have "too much CO2 in atmosphere" isn't evidence and historically there was much higher levels, and much more life. We will have more life, but less humans and probably our civilisation will not survive. Apart from that, earth will be fine, so we should do as we please and put as much pollution as we want to?
- Kerb_ 3y ago
  Well, a bunch of the other dominant species would die too, but "life" referring to the construct of individual contained chemical reactions sustaining themselves will surely continue, which is basically the same thing
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Folks often try on these arguments: it'll cost too much (to save all our lives). Or 'it got terribly hot before so somehow it's natural and ok'. We may survive as a species. But our civilization will not survive the destabilization it causes. E.g. folks depend on fish for a large part of the planet, from coastal waters. Kill the reefs (which we've made a good start on), the coastal ecosystem collpases (california crab anyone?) and not thousands, not millions but hundreds of millions of people starve. Then what? Some kind of global rescue effort? Not hardly. Look at the last wave of 10,000 refugees, how every European country was winging about 'we can't accept a thousand! It's too much!' Now add four zeroes to that number. Get the picture?
- loceng 3y ago
  "Folks often try on these arguments: it'll cost too much (to save all our lives). Or 'it got terribly hot before so somehow it's natural and ok'." This is a straw man argument. I didn't say it costs too much, I was stating options for how and where money may be better spent. And if you haven't observed yet that the free market - save for regulatory capture - is far more efficient than government at most efficiently distributing resources where needed, then "you" aren't paying enough attention.