3 ms·

For once I would love to see those downvoting pushback against the cult of planet-saving to present an argument against the facts as presented. Take that chart

For once I would love to see those downvoting pushback against the cult of planet-saving to present an argument against the facts as presented. Take that chart and explain how erasing 14% or even 50% of emissions can save the planet. Then explain how heat pumps or banning ICE vehicles --which is insignificant when compared to erasing massive modern civilizations-- is superior to erasing entire regions of the planet. You might not like what I said. That does not make it wrong.

usrusr 2y ago
Even if tomorrow a giant space-maid robot came by and stole much of our atmospheric CO2 we'd have to eventually make do without fossil fuels. Because if we continue they'd all be oxidized to the lowest energy state (CO2) one day. Giant space-maid or not. Is it that terrible to start a little earlier? Inconvenient, sure, I'll give you that. Massively inconvenient.
panstromek 2y ago
You're using facts about the magnitude of the problem to justify inaction towards solving it. That just doesn't make any sense.
- robomartin 2y ago
  > You're using facts about the magnitude of the problem to justify inaction towards solving it. That just doesn't make any sense. No. I am telling you that there is no way we can solve it. Doing so requires violating the laws of physics and science in general. That's what does not make sense. What is clearer proof of the fallacy than knowing precisely how our planet behaves without humanity on it? We know this. Accurately. It takes 50K to 100K years for a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2. Nothing. Absolutely nothing we do can improve on this rate of change. I've seen politicians claim we can fix it in 20 to 50 years. Does anyone challenge this nonsense when uttered? No, of course not. They are claiming we can accelerate a planetary scale problem by a factor of ONE THOUSAND or more and nobody bothers to ask "How?" or "Where is the energy going to come from?" or "How much additional pollution and damage will the proposed process generate?" or "Are you insane?". We desperately need to start talking about reality and leave these fantasies behind.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > It takes 50K to 100K years for a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2. > Nothing. Absolutely nothing we do can improve on this rate of change Trivially false—humanity has already changed the CO2 ppm by larger, in a shorter span of time. For the most part without even noticing.
    - robomartin 2y ago
      > Trivially false—humanity has already changed the CO2 ppm by larger, in a shorter span of time. For the most part without even noticing. You are trivially confused: The time, energy and resources required to emit these gasses is insignificant when compared to what it will take to capture them back. That's the problem, and that's what most casual observers refuse to think through and understand. Go buy a 10 kg bag of fine flour. Walk around your home or office spreading the stuff everywhere. Now clean up every single particle. Easy to make a mess. Not so easy in time, energy and resources to clean it up. That's the problem.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        This is why glitter has been banned from my house.
        fuzzfactor 2y ago
        No matter how wonderful or dazzling, often the genie is best kept within the bottle :) And Pandoras held far from any boxes just for good measure.
      - kragen 2y ago
        > The time, energy and resources required to emit these gasses is insignificant when compared to what it will take to capture them back. I explained why this is incorrect in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42424292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42424292.
  - panstromek 2y ago
aziaziazi 2y ago
I didn’t downvoted you but can add some thoughts on what you said: - erasing the USA from the map would very surely reduce some other countries emissions (world factory…). One could argue it would also remove a leader (literally) in consomptionmania and that would give space for other countries lifestyle inspirations. - by "saving the planet" people mean many different things, arguing against this expression won’t bring much discussion. For me it’s mostly preserving access of the ressources that made humanity so bliss: diverse fauna, diverse flora, clean air and water and a bit of minerals. - your chart is about CO2e but it’s just a part of the equation. I deplore organizations and govs tends to focus on those levels, they’re often not only a cause but also a consequence. Ecologie is a vast, domain. - I agree banning ICE is ridiculous, just a bit less than the 90’s moto "remove you wall charger when not in used to SAVE THE PLANET". Those measure are politic (to secure car usage while oils keep draining) and economic (many new car sales, new infrastructures for charging).
kelnos 2y ago
I see plenty of valid arguments in replies to you that seem reasonable. You're just ignoring them and repeating the same things over and over.
- kragen 2y ago
  To be fair, at the time you made your comment, those arguments against robomartin were only correct, not valid. Some of them were not even correct. They were almost entirely unsupported assertions rather than valid arguments from verifiable facts. Hopefully my comments have improved that situation.

usrusr 2y ago

Even if tomorrow a giant space-maid robot came by and stole much of our atmospheric CO2 we'd have to eventually make do without fossil fuels. Because if we continue they'd all be oxidized to the lowest energy state (CO2) one day. Giant space-maid or not. Is it that terrible to start a little earlier? Inconvenient, sure, I'll give you that. Massively inconvenient.

panstromek 2y ago

You're using facts about the magnitude of the problem to justify inaction towards solving it. That just doesn't make any sense.

robomartin 2y ago
> You're using facts about the magnitude of the problem to justify inaction towards solving it. That just doesn't make any sense. No. I am telling you that there is no way we can solve it. Doing so requires violating the laws of physics and science in general. That's what does not make sense. What is clearer proof of the fallacy than knowing precisely how our planet behaves without humanity on it? We know this. Accurately. It takes 50K to 100K years for a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2. Nothing. Absolutely nothing we do can improve on this rate of change. I've seen politicians claim we can fix it in 20 to 50 years. Does anyone challenge this nonsense when uttered? No, of course not. They are claiming we can accelerate a planetary scale problem by a factor of ONE THOUSAND or more and nobody bothers to ask "How?" or "Where is the energy going to come from?" or "How much additional pollution and damage will the proposed process generate?" or "Are you insane?". We desperately need to start talking about reality and leave these fantasies behind.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > It takes 50K to 100K years for a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2. > Nothing. Absolutely nothing we do can improve on this rate of change Trivially false—humanity has already changed the CO2 ppm by larger, in a shorter span of time. For the most part without even noticing.
  - robomartin 2y ago
    > Trivially false—humanity has already changed the CO2 ppm by larger, in a shorter span of time. For the most part without even noticing. You are trivially confused: The time, energy and resources required to emit these gasses is insignificant when compared to what it will take to capture them back. That's the problem, and that's what most casual observers refuse to think through and understand. Go buy a 10 kg bag of fine flour. Walk around your home or office spreading the stuff everywhere. Now clean up every single particle. Easy to make a mess. Not so easy in time, energy and resources to clean it up. That's the problem.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      This is why glitter has been banned from my house.
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        No matter how wonderful or dazzling, often the genie is best kept within the bottle :) And Pandoras held far from any boxes just for good measure.
    - kragen 2y ago
      > The time, energy and resources required to emit these gasses is insignificant when compared to what it will take to capture them back. I explained why this is incorrect in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42424292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42424292.
- panstromek 2y ago

aziaziazi 2y ago

I didn’t downvoted you but can add some thoughts on what you said: - erasing the USA from the map would very surely reduce some other countries emissions (world factory…). One could argue it would also remove a leader (literally) in consomptionmania and that would give space for other countries lifestyle inspirations. - by "saving the planet" people mean many different things, arguing against this expression won’t bring much discussion. For me it’s mostly preserving access of the ressources that made humanity so bliss: diverse fauna, diverse flora, clean air and water and a bit of minerals. - your chart is about CO2e but it’s just a part of the equation. I deplore organizations and govs tends to focus on those levels, they’re often not only a cause but also a consequence. Ecologie is a vast, domain. - I agree banning ICE is ridiculous, just a bit less than the 90’s moto "remove you wall charger when not in used to SAVE THE PLANET". Those measure are politic (to secure car usage while oils keep draining) and economic (many new car sales, new infrastructures for charging).

kelnos 2y ago

I see plenty of valid arguments in replies to you that seem reasonable. You're just ignoring them and repeating the same things over and over.

kragen 2y ago
To be fair, at the time you made your comment, those arguments against robomartin were only correct, not valid. Some of them were not even correct. They were almost entirely unsupported assertions rather than valid arguments from verifiable facts. Hopefully my comments have improved that situation.