3 ms·

These are true long-shots. We need to drastically reduce emissions in a time frame that is becoming increasingly unrealistic. I don't pretend to know the soluti

These are true long-shots. We need to drastically reduce emissions in a time frame that is becoming increasingly unrealistic. I don't pretend to know the solution, but part of it is going to have to be the global economy realizing our current level of consumption is not sustainable. Since that is not likely to ever happen, we should shift to a combination of emissions reduction + catastrophe mitigation (funding for building seawalls on vulnerable coasts, investing in new agriculture technology to help stave off famine, etc.).

archontes 3y ago
We just need to price reclamation into the cost of energy. If a process that has reduced emissions is more efficient, it'll be used, if it's not, it won't, and if the product isn't worth the cost of its combined production and reclamation, it won't be purchased.
- namaria 3y ago
  "You just need to" answers to complex problems are almost always wrong. People can't even agree climate change needs policy addressing. All solutions needing political consensus are an automatic fail. All solutions requiring intensification of mining/industry/energy consumption are adding to the problem. We need less consumption, and short of hitting rock bottom in terms of global consequences and widespread societal failure, that is not gonna happen. So chose well where you buy land.
krunck 3y ago
Yes. We need to end growthist economic thinking. Slowing or reversing population growth would also help.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > Slowing or reversing population growth That has already happened (slowing population growth). Look at demographic predictions by country over the next 50 years. Many countries are going to run out of labor, as the existing population ages, because of the huge decline in birthrates for industrialized nations. To put it in simpler terms, "half of all babies in 2100 will be born in Africa".

archontes 3y ago

We just need to price reclamation into the cost of energy. If a process that has reduced emissions is more efficient, it'll be used, if it's not, it won't, and if the product isn't worth the cost of its combined production and reclamation, it won't be purchased.

namaria 3y ago
"You just need to" answers to complex problems are almost always wrong. People can't even agree climate change needs policy addressing. All solutions needing political consensus are an automatic fail. All solutions requiring intensification of mining/industry/energy consumption are adding to the problem. We need less consumption, and short of hitting rock bottom in terms of global consequences and widespread societal failure, that is not gonna happen. So chose well where you buy land.

krunck 3y ago

Yes. We need to end growthist economic thinking. Slowing or reversing population growth would also help.

Supermancho 3y ago
> Slowing or reversing population growth That has already happened (slowing population growth). Look at demographic predictions by country over the next 50 years. Many countries are going to run out of labor, as the existing population ages, because of the huge decline in birthrates for industrialized nations. To put it in simpler terms, "half of all babies in 2100 will be born in Africa".