tito

9 ms·

121.
by tito 2y ago
Carbon removal is expensive and sounds like science fiction. Unfortunately, IPCC reports from 2018 and 2023 confirm that carbon removal is necessary to stabilize temperatures. Decarbonization alone is no longer enough. We need to get better
122.
by tito 3y ago
thanks for the suggestions everyone. just played the LoTR through MUDlet for a bit.
123.
by tito 3y ago
This just sparked me to look up my old favorite. Just a 20 year old thread with posts over the years: https://alt.mud.narkive.com/No6CZyd7/questwars-quest-for-fae... What's a good MUD to play now?
124.
by tito 3y ago
cool! i worked on open hardware for PCR ( http://openpcr.org ). what are you working on now? i'm working on reversing climate change at http://airminers.com
125.
by tito 3y ago
I hear you, I appreciate the clarification in how you're thinking about this.
126.
by tito 3y ago
Yes there's a potential conflict there. I'm curious to hear from your perspective: 1. Do we need to maintain a stable climate? 2. Do we need to win the decarbonization game to do so? And if not, how else do we maintain a stable cl
127.
by tito 3y ago
I want this to happen, how can I help?
128.
by tito 3y ago
Stopping doing things we're doing today is one possibility. How are you going to do that?
129.
by tito 3y ago
Oh I get it. You tax emissions with no way to lower the tax besides lowering emissions. That means there's an underlying accounting for carbon, but like you said there's not something like market or exchange. So in this model air
130.
by tito 3y ago
Got it, I missed your point and still haven't got it. I appreciate that you took the time to respond.
131.
by tito 3y ago
In line with this, another comment someone said "perhaps they're doing exactly their job but their job is not actually what it purports to be." It's possible they're doing exactly their job but that it's not a
132.
by tito 3y ago
In your analogy, yes, I'm the person that sees nutrition as exercise as the only levers, and so then my alternative solution is "well we need to get it right then". Open to other ideas for levers too.
133.
by tito 3y ago
First off, yes, agree, fixed problem, open on solution, "how" could be anything, including doing a funny dance that inspires every person on the planet to just stop emitting so much. Hmm, say more about this. I said this to anothe
134.
by tito 3y ago
I think that's an acceptable conclusion. So then, what's next? We need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Current solutions aren't working great, so how do we do it?
135.
by tito 3y ago
Say more about this! Let's say you had $100B to build better climate models over the next 5 years. Where would you spend it? My general sense is the models are good enough to tell us that a) things are headed in the wrong direction and
136.
by tito 3y ago
How do we rapidly decarbonize in the next decade?
137.
by tito 3y ago
I appreciate this comment. It's possible they're doing exactly their job but that it's not a job we need done. The job we need done is rapid decarbonization. So how do we do that?
138.
by tito 3y ago
I'm pretty sure all a carbon tax does is solve for the "demand" side of the equation. Fundamentally you would still need an accounting system for carbon, thus carbon credits of different sorts. Or am I missing something?
139.
by tito 3y ago
I work in the industry [0]. The decarbonization game is extremely tricky. This whole notion of "were they going to do it anyway", how the heck do you build that in. And how the heck does demand happen, who wants to pay for invisib
140.
by tito 3y ago
I don't see why a market can't do it. Carbon dioxide is invisible, mostly useless gas, and it's currently emitted by most cars, planes, trains, and factories. The accounting needs to happen somewhere, markets seem good at tha
141.
by tito 3y ago
The job we have to do is rapidly decarbonize our economy and also remove billions of tons of carbon already in the air. This pursuit is likely in the trillions of dollars in our lifetime. Existing carbon offsets are best thought of as an at
142.
by tito 3y ago
Then how do we effectively decarbonize the planet quickly? That's the need.
143.
by tito 3y ago
At the root of this is "do we need to decarbonize?". I'm curious where you land on this.
144.
by tito 3y ago
I think you two are saying different things. Agree that the existing products for decarbonization have a lot of room for improvement. Some solutions include: 1. Stopping the dumping 2. Pay the full cost of the impact of any dumping that doe
145.
by tito 3y ago
I like this framing. That's because it seems like a working carbon market is a must have to hit decarbonization goals. Therefore it's a question not of "if", but "how". And a lot of the current "how"
146.
by tito 3y ago
We absolutely need a working market to meet decarbonization goals for a stable climate. The state of the current market means there's a lot of opportunity for improvement.
147.
by tito 3y ago
Carbon removal is on track to be a $1T industry per year . There's that much excess carbon dioxide in the air. The scale that's needed is far beyond what trees can do. And trees have their own complications - carbon release (fire
148.
by tito 3y ago
edit: 20 kg of CO2, not 20 tons. This system proposes removing 30 millions tons per year. A tree captures about 0.02 tons of carbon dioxide per year. So this is the equivalent to 1.5 billion trees. Trees grow at about 800 trees per acre. Th
149.
by tito 3y ago
Oh you're totally right, 20 kg, not 20 tons. My bad. In a year, 1 tree removes the equivalent emissions of 2 gallons of gasoline.
150.
by tito 3y ago
Completely agree, need to factor it all in.

More ›