4 ms·

Both, in parallel, theres enough humans and resources to work on both

by malux85 2y ago

cheonic00193 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Why not?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Suppose you have any finite number of humans to work on the problem. Emissions reductions can be achieved in known ways at some relatively modest cost, e.g. the difference in cost between using fossil fuels and using electric cars or renewable/nuclear generation methods, which are already very close together in price and could be made closer or even cause the alternatives to cost less through certain types of engineering R&D or reasonable regulatory changes, and not only lower emissions but lower energy costs. Carbon capture requires a large amount of R&D which might not yield any useful results whatsoever, and if it did the result would be a reduction in cost from a level which is hopeless and preposterous to one where actually deploying it would still cost trillions of dollars in implementation and operating costs to have any meaningful effect, while producing no other economic value and almost certainly a vast amount of chemical waste. The difference in cost effectiveness is so vast that the optimal allocation of finite resources to the latter could plausibly be zero.
atoav 2y ago
I would generally agree with that statement. However in this case I disagree. Why? Because I think carbon capture sells the idea that with the right technology we could just continue doing what we are doing. It is the equivalent of an obese person stuffing food in their mouth and telling you fat can always be surgically removed. Yeah sure it can, to some degree, but you do see how that doesn't fix the problem? Do you see how them saying that might in fact be worse than them saying nothing? So in my mind carbon capture is something that we should work on if we are capable of the realization that the role it will play in fixing the problem is utterly insignificant. If you think it is the solution, carbon capture sells a false hope and prolongs the struggle — and at least where I am from proponents of carbon capture are the people who definitely don't want to reduce their CO2 output. Pointing at some future technology instead of doing something now is actively harmful. And I am not sure the actual positive effect of such technology would outweigh the negative effect it has as an excuse to justify not doing what is necessary now.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Because I think carbon capture sells the idea that with the right technology we could just continue doing what we are doing. It is the equivalent of an obese person stuffing food in their mouth and telling you fat can always be surgically removed. Yeah sure it can, to some degree, but you do see how that doesn't fix the problem? Do you see how them saying that might in fact be worse than them saying nothing? What you’re overlooking is that we will keep doing whatever we’re doing, for the same reason telling people to diet and exercise isn’t doing jack shit for the obesity crisis. We need Ozempic for the climate. Because the only alternative is 4C of warming.
  - Teever 2y ago
    If that's the case maybe we as a species should die? Or at least enough of the species that we change our behaviour for good? It's unfortunate that the ecosystem has to suffer.
    - tticvs 2y ago
      "The future looks somewhat difficult, better give up and go extinct" Fortunately natural selection will remove this mindset eventually. It's unfortunate that the species has to suffer it in the meantime.
      - Teever 2y ago
        I never suggested that we should give up. It may just be that this group of people isn't up to the challenge and, like you said, natural selection is necessary to produce a group that is up to the challenge. Unfortunately that selection may come too late and much of the ecosystem may suffer for it.
        tticvs 2y ago
        > maybe we as a species should die? Sounds a lot like giving up to me. Wishing for human extinction makes you an enemy of all mankind btw
exyi 2y ago
If we have enough resources dedicated to this problem, why are we still burning coal/gas for power on sunny days? I'm definitely not against researching carbon capture, but it currently isn't the "the solution the planet desperately needs"
- icegreentea2 2y ago
  The resources going into carbon capture aren't the same resources going into renewable? The scale is also completely different. Bloomberg says global investment in carbon capture in 2022 was like $6.4 billion (https://about.bnef.com/blog/carbon-capture-investment-hits-record-high-of-6-4-billion/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/carbon-capture-investment-hits-r...). Bloomberg also says that global renewable investment in the first 6 months of 2023 was $358 billion (https://about.bnef.com/blog/renewable-energy-investment-hits-record-breaking-358-billion-in-1h-2023/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/renewable-energy-investment-hits...) Conversion of all carbon capture investment into more solar or wind capacity would not significantly move the needle on rate of renewable growth. Effectively all carbon capture investment right now is basically in the pilot phase. Governments are sinking money into carbon capture for a broad range of reasons, including cynical (as a smokescreen to protect fossil fuel industries) to optimistic (we can start investing in the next step of net-zero since renewable trajectories look good) to being realistic hedges (they see the challenges in achieving net zero in certain fields like aviation, shipping, construction, and believe that carbon capture is what is necessary to achieve net-zero).
lordswork 2y ago
If we have fixed resources, how should they be allocated? I'd argue for every million dollars towards reaching net zero emissions, we should maybe spend 1 dollar towards carbon capture, where we scale that investment up as we approach net zero emissions.

Both, in parallel, theres enough humans and resources to work on both

cheonic00193 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
CalRobert 2y ago
Why not?
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Suppose you have any finite number of humans to work on the problem. Emissions reductions can be achieved in known ways at some relatively modest cost, e.g. the difference in cost between using fossil fuels and using electric cars or renewable/nuclear generation methods, which are already very close together in price and could be made closer or even cause the alternatives to cost less through certain types of engineering R&D or reasonable regulatory changes, and not only lower emissions but lower energy costs. Carbon capture requires a large amount of R&D which might not yield any useful results whatsoever, and if it did the result would be a reduction in cost from a level which is hopeless and preposterous to one where actually deploying it would still cost trillions of dollars in implementation and operating costs to have any meaningful effect, while producing no other economic value and almost certainly a vast amount of chemical waste. The difference in cost effectiveness is so vast that the optimal allocation of finite resources to the latter could plausibly be zero.

atoav 2y ago

I would generally agree with that statement. However in this case I disagree. Why? Because I think carbon capture sells the idea that with the right technology we could just continue doing what we are doing. It is the equivalent of an obese person stuffing food in their mouth and telling you fat can always be surgically removed. Yeah sure it can, to some degree, but you do see how that doesn't fix the problem? Do you see how them saying that might in fact be worse than them saying nothing? So in my mind carbon capture is something that we should work on if we are capable of the realization that the role it will play in fixing the problem is utterly insignificant. If you think it is the solution, carbon capture sells a false hope and prolongs the struggle — and at least where I am from proponents of carbon capture are the people who definitely don't want to reduce their CO2 output. Pointing at some future technology instead of doing something now is actively harmful. And I am not sure the actual positive effect of such technology would outweigh the negative effect it has as an excuse to justify not doing what is necessary now.

rayiner 2y ago
> Because I think carbon capture sells the idea that with the right technology we could just continue doing what we are doing. It is the equivalent of an obese person stuffing food in their mouth and telling you fat can always be surgically removed. Yeah sure it can, to some degree, but you do see how that doesn't fix the problem? Do you see how them saying that might in fact be worse than them saying nothing? What you’re overlooking is that we will keep doing whatever we’re doing, for the same reason telling people to diet and exercise isn’t doing jack shit for the obesity crisis. We need Ozempic for the climate. Because the only alternative is 4C of warming.
- Teever 2y ago
  If that's the case maybe we as a species should die? Or at least enough of the species that we change our behaviour for good? It's unfortunate that the ecosystem has to suffer.
  - tticvs 2y ago
    "The future looks somewhat difficult, better give up and go extinct" Fortunately natural selection will remove this mindset eventually. It's unfortunate that the species has to suffer it in the meantime.
    - Teever 2y ago
      I never suggested that we should give up. It may just be that this group of people isn't up to the challenge and, like you said, natural selection is necessary to produce a group that is up to the challenge. Unfortunately that selection may come too late and much of the ecosystem may suffer for it.
      - tticvs 2y ago
        > maybe we as a species should die? Sounds a lot like giving up to me. Wishing for human extinction makes you an enemy of all mankind btw

exyi 2y ago

If we have enough resources dedicated to this problem, why are we still burning coal/gas for power on sunny days? I'm definitely not against researching carbon capture, but it currently isn't the "the solution the planet desperately needs"

icegreentea2 2y ago
The resources going into carbon capture aren't the same resources going into renewable? The scale is also completely different. Bloomberg says global investment in carbon capture in 2022 was like $6.4 billion (https://about.bnef.com/blog/carbon-capture-investment-hits-record-high-of-6-4-billion/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/carbon-capture-investment-hits-r...). Bloomberg also says that global renewable investment in the first 6 months of 2023 was $358 billion (https://about.bnef.com/blog/renewable-energy-investment-hits-record-breaking-358-billion-in-1h-2023/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/renewable-energy-investment-hits...) Conversion of all carbon capture investment into more solar or wind capacity would not significantly move the needle on rate of renewable growth. Effectively all carbon capture investment right now is basically in the pilot phase. Governments are sinking money into carbon capture for a broad range of reasons, including cynical (as a smokescreen to protect fossil fuel industries) to optimistic (we can start investing in the next step of net-zero since renewable trajectories look good) to being realistic hedges (they see the challenges in achieving net zero in certain fields like aviation, shipping, construction, and believe that carbon capture is what is necessary to achieve net-zero).

lordswork 2y ago

If we have fixed resources, how should they be allocated? I'd argue for every million dollars towards reaching net zero emissions, we should maybe spend 1 dollar towards carbon capture, where we scale that investment up as we approach net zero emissions.