5 ms·
> I'd much rather be dealing with industrial quantities of CO2 than Cl2 The costs of CO2 - the real costs, not the subsidized ones - are extraordinarily high,
by wolverine876 3y ago
> I'd much rather be dealing with industrial quantities of CO2 than Cl2
The costs of CO2 - the real costs, not the subsidized ones - are extraordinarily high, possibly leading to the worst global catastrophe in human history. What is the cost of Cl2?
- ReptileMan 3y agoParts of your lung flying out of your mouth. It was the first chemical weapon for a reason.
- lostlogin 3y agoIs gassing the frog or slowly boiling it crueler? With the passing of time the answer might not be so clear.
- IMTDb 3y agoWell, you gas your frogs and I put mine in 2 degrees warmer ponds and we see which one are happier ?
- roenxi 3y agoTime for some dark humour! After careful analysis of the situation... The frogs in the 2 degree warmer pond will be complaining a lot more than the other frogs, so that must be worse.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- concordDance 3y agoLast I checked (many years ago) the estimated long term cost from climate change due to all CO2 so far released was only in the low trillions (making WW2 a much bigger catastrophe), do you have an updated figure?
- ulrikrasmussen 3y agoYou talking about the area under an initial section of a hockey stick curve.
- pjc50 3y agoSwapping all the CO2 in the atmosphere for Cl would kill us all within 30 minutes (at 400ppm). It's way more dangerous.
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoI realise this is a silly thought experiment but the point of comparison should be, at the very most, the human industry generated CO2, not all natural CO2. The CO2 from this particular process is probably more relevant and since this process generated 1 ton of Cl per ton of Steel and the normal process generated 3 tons of CO2, we should give it a 66% discount.
- Shrezzing 3y ago> I realise this is a silly thought experiment but the point of comparison should be, at the very most, the human industry generated CO2, not all natural CO2 The pre-industrial levels of CO2 were around 280ppm, while the current CO2 levels are around 440ppm. For Cl2, in occupational-health situations the permissible exposure is around 1ppm per hour, or 3ppm for 15 minutes. So the 160ppm we'd throw into the atmosphere in this thought experiment (or even the 52ppm at the suggested discount) is going to cause some pretty big problems pretty rapidly.
- Workaccount2 3y agoArguably the most deadly part of CO2 is that it kills sooooooo slowly. Vent CO2 and nobody blinks. Vent Cl and everyone is gonna hate you immediately for immediately present negatives.
- wolverine876 3y agoThat's not the alternative option; nobody is suggesting swapping. Swapping CO2 for fission waste products would also kills us. Swapping it for H2O would drown us!
- Tenemo 3y agoI think there's like 3 orders of magnitude more water in our atmosphere by weight than CO2, so a swap wouldn't drown us. But the point you were trying to make is clear.