4 ms·

The idea that we are going to technology our way out of climate change is hilariously naive. That would require us to remove more co2 from the atmopshere each y

The idea that we are going to technology our way out of climate change is hilariously naive. That would require us to remove more co2 from the atmopshere each year than we add, which is just a laughable idea to achieve within the required time frame of the next 15 years or so.

goatlover 2y ago
What happens in 15 years? It’s not a comet impact. It’s an ongoing problem where technology will help us adapt.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  The problem is that we are adding too much CO2 to the air. In fact, we have already added too much CO2 to the air, to the point that we will have noticable bad effects within the next few decades. More importantly, all this stuff has huge inertia, so if we stopped producing CO2 right this second, we would STILL blow past CO2 goals. If we EVER want to get back to today's climate, you know, "normal", it requires removing gigatons of CO2 from the air. From a pure chemistry energy of reaction standpoint, that will be enormously expensive. There is zero technology that can change the physics fact that combining CO2 with something that will sequester it will take more energy than we ever got out of it. Petroenergy is explicitly a loan. We have to pay that back
  - goatlover 2y ago
    I understand that, but we may have to adapt to new normal with noticeable bad effects. That's where technology can help. Not sure we can remove that much CO2. Maybe if fusion becomes a thing, it would give use enough cheap energy.
- smallerfish 2y ago
  There's all kinds of tipping points that are plausible in the next decade that would lead to accelerating warming. Permafrost melting releasing large amounts of methane; gulf stream redirecting; extended drought in climate critical regions; large ice shelves collapsing, etc. It's gradual until it's not.
jayGlow 2y ago
there are likely technologies that could mitigate the effects while we work on a solution. geoengineering could help reduce the temperature of the planet although that has its own problems.
- jonathankoren 2y ago
  We have the solution for decades. The rolling class just doesn’t want to use them because it would cost them money
_yb2s 2y ago
It would have to be both cultural/political, and technological on that time frame. With current technologies that remove CO2, we could completely remove all of the CO2 we currently add to the atmosphere, without even any reduction in our use or release of CO2. The cost of such an effort with current technology would be slightly less than, for example, the cost of World War II (adjusted for inflation, etc.). If people cared enough to make huge sacrifices, we could absolutely do it right now. Now the technology to make it effortless, so it happens automatically without people doing anything expensive or difficult? E.g. pulling carbon from the air to make things becomes cheaper and superior to pulling oil from the ground? Indeed, we are a ways from that.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  the solution is that most of humanity has to go. it sounds like the world is moving that direction, anyway
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    Ok Thanos

goatlover 2y ago

What happens in 15 years? It’s not a comet impact. It’s an ongoing problem where technology will help us adapt.

mrguyorama 2y ago
The problem is that we are adding too much CO2 to the air. In fact, we have already added too much CO2 to the air, to the point that we will have noticable bad effects within the next few decades. More importantly, all this stuff has huge inertia, so if we stopped producing CO2 right this second, we would STILL blow past CO2 goals. If we EVER want to get back to today's climate, you know, "normal", it requires removing gigatons of CO2 from the air. From a pure chemistry energy of reaction standpoint, that will be enormously expensive. There is zero technology that can change the physics fact that combining CO2 with something that will sequester it will take more energy than we ever got out of it. Petroenergy is explicitly a loan. We have to pay that back
- goatlover 2y ago
  I understand that, but we may have to adapt to new normal with noticeable bad effects. That's where technology can help. Not sure we can remove that much CO2. Maybe if fusion becomes a thing, it would give use enough cheap energy.
smallerfish 2y ago
There's all kinds of tipping points that are plausible in the next decade that would lead to accelerating warming. Permafrost melting releasing large amounts of methane; gulf stream redirecting; extended drought in climate critical regions; large ice shelves collapsing, etc. It's gradual until it's not.

jayGlow 2y ago

there are likely technologies that could mitigate the effects while we work on a solution. geoengineering could help reduce the temperature of the planet although that has its own problems.

jonathankoren 2y ago
We have the solution for decades. The rolling class just doesn’t want to use them because it would cost them money

_yb2s 2y ago

It would have to be both cultural/political, and technological on that time frame. With current technologies that remove CO2, we could completely remove all of the CO2 we currently add to the atmosphere, without even any reduction in our use or release of CO2. The cost of such an effort with current technology would be slightly less than, for example, the cost of World War II (adjusted for inflation, etc.). If people cared enough to make huge sacrifices, we could absolutely do it right now. Now the technology to make it effortless, so it happens automatically without people doing anything expensive or difficult? E.g. pulling carbon from the air to make things becomes cheaper and superior to pulling oil from the ground? Indeed, we are a ways from that.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
the solution is that most of humanity has to go. it sounds like the world is moving that direction, anyway
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Ok Thanos