3 ms·
> wouldn't we just be better of not burning the carbon? Of course, just like we'd all be better off not overfishing, but tragedy of the commons dilemma makes i
by hackerlight 3y ago
> wouldn't we just be better of not burning the carbon?
Of course, just like we'd all be better off not overfishing, but tragedy of the commons dilemma makes it hard to coordinate to stop that from happening. Not to mention, renewables have only become cheap recently, but we've been emitting for a long time.
- rhelz 3y agono, even if you are a greedy kapitalist pig, we'd be better off not burning the carbon...because: 1. You can't scrub the air using energy from burning fossils fuels--it puts more C02 into the atmosphere than it yields energy to take it back out again, and 2. In the scenario described, we were only able to provide 90-95% of our energy using carbon-neutral sources. That and #1 above means that we would not have the energy needed to scrub any C02 from the atmosphere. Burning fossils fuels at that point would be a net loss in power.