Interesting. I was always skeptical of carbon sequestration because if you factor in the entire life cycle of that process, I don't think it nets to a negative carbon rate fast enough to do...
Interesting. I was always skeptical of carbon sequestration because if you factor in the entire life cycle of that process, I don't think it nets to a negative carbon rate fast enough to do anything.
Further supports the fact that these band-aid solutions won't work well after the fact
The article continuously labors the fact that removing carbon won't immediately help, but will eventually help, up to 200 years after we've brought levels back to normal. This is also in an...
The article continuously labors the fact that removing carbon won't immediately help, but will eventually help, up to 200 years after we've brought levels back to normal. This is also in an "advanced" model where we do nothing and let the problem get much worse before we begin fixing the issue.
So it's not that it won't help, it's that it won't help immediately.
I think the spirit of the results suggest that having empathy for our predecessors and doing the right thing now for the betterment of someone other than us is key.
Also, their closing remarks were:
"I think that the main message of our study is that we should reduce carbon dioxide emissions now, because afterwards it gets really difficult," she said. "We cannot control nature, we cannot reverse the consequences that easily; we cannot fix nature"
Effectively, they are cautioning us to take action now, because waiting will only delay recovery that much more. The title suggests we should abandon our efforts to clean up our mess but that's the opposite of what they're saying, they are urging us to do something now because it only gets harder the longer we ignore and add to the problem.
The article makes perfect sense in the context of idiots saying "well why don't we just remove carbon from the atmosphere?" as an alternative to renewables. In practice, the cheapest and quickest...
The article makes perfect sense in the context of idiots saying "well why don't we just remove carbon from the atmosphere?" as an alternative to renewables. In practice, the cheapest and quickest way to remove carbon from the atmosphere is to stop emitting in the first place, but some people haven't gotten the memo.
Yes. In particular there will be an interim period where there is insufficient renewables and energy storage to account for renewables intermittent generation (no electrons when the sun isn't...
Yes. In particular there will be an interim period where there is insufficient renewables and energy storage to account for renewables intermittent generation (no electrons when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing). During that time we need dispatchable energy to stabilize the grid. Since we don't have enough nuclear or hydro we'll be in an awkward place in which we'll need to continue burning fossil fuels. We just can't make the transition to renewable energy quick enough. Carbon sequestration and storage, while a bandaid, will be a welcome addition to all the other I initiatives being done economy wide to decarbonize.
Which is awesome. But have you spoken to anyone who doesn't support Degrowth as a concept? The sheer insanity of terms and phrases you get launched at you is remarkable. Carbon Capture and E-Cars...
"I think that the main message of our study is that we should reduce carbon dioxide emissions now, because afterwards it gets really difficult," she said. "We cannot control nature, we cannot reverse the consequences that easily; we cannot fix nature"
Which is awesome. But have you spoken to anyone who doesn't support Degrowth as a concept?
The sheer insanity of terms and phrases you get launched at you is remarkable.
Carbon Capture and E-Cars have been sold as silver bullets, The West just won't change its lifestyle to help the planet.
This reminds me of the general concept of overshoot, often called the Malthusian trap. Often, once overshoot occurs it's often too late to prevent many of the negative effects without...
This reminds me of the general concept of overshoot, often called the Malthusian trap. Often, once overshoot occurs it's often too late to prevent many of the negative effects without overcorrecting in the opposite direction, as overshoot causes the carrying capacity (equilibrium) to drop. I'm not suggesting that we should throw up our hands and ignore climate change of course. Rather I think we need to seriously consider degrowth rather than hoping that scientific advancements will save us. The St. Matthew Island Reindeer are often cited as a primary example of this phenomenon. Whether we'll get to degrowth willingly or not is a haunting question.
Interesting. I was always skeptical of carbon sequestration because if you factor in the entire life cycle of that process, I don't think it nets to a negative carbon rate fast enough to do anything.
Further supports the fact that these band-aid solutions won't work well after the fact
The article continuously labors the fact that removing carbon won't immediately help, but will eventually help, up to 200 years after we've brought levels back to normal. This is also in an "advanced" model where we do nothing and let the problem get much worse before we begin fixing the issue.
So it's not that it won't help, it's that it won't help immediately.
I think the spirit of the results suggest that having empathy for our predecessors and doing the right thing now for the betterment of someone other than us is key.
Also, their closing remarks were:
"I think that the main message of our study is that we should reduce carbon dioxide emissions now, because afterwards it gets really difficult," she said. "We cannot control nature, we cannot reverse the consequences that easily; we cannot fix nature"
Effectively, they are cautioning us to take action now, because waiting will only delay recovery that much more. The title suggests we should abandon our efforts to clean up our mess but that's the opposite of what they're saying, they are urging us to do something now because it only gets harder the longer we ignore and add to the problem.
The article makes perfect sense in the context of idiots saying "well why don't we just remove carbon from the atmosphere?" as an alternative to renewables. In practice, the cheapest and quickest way to remove carbon from the atmosphere is to stop emitting in the first place, but some people haven't gotten the memo.
Yes. In particular there will be an interim period where there is insufficient renewables and energy storage to account for renewables intermittent generation (no electrons when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing). During that time we need dispatchable energy to stabilize the grid. Since we don't have enough nuclear or hydro we'll be in an awkward place in which we'll need to continue burning fossil fuels. We just can't make the transition to renewable energy quick enough. Carbon sequestration and storage, while a bandaid, will be a welcome addition to all the other I initiatives being done economy wide to decarbonize.
Which is awesome. But have you spoken to anyone who doesn't support Degrowth as a concept?
The sheer insanity of terms and phrases you get launched at you is remarkable.
Carbon Capture and E-Cars have been sold as silver bullets, The West just won't change its lifestyle to help the planet.
This reminds me of the general concept of overshoot, often called the Malthusian trap. Often, once overshoot occurs it's often too late to prevent many of the negative effects without overcorrecting in the opposite direction, as overshoot causes the carrying capacity (equilibrium) to drop. I'm not suggesting that we should throw up our hands and ignore climate change of course. Rather I think we need to seriously consider degrowth rather than hoping that scientific advancements will save us. The St. Matthew Island Reindeer are often cited as a primary example of this phenomenon. Whether we'll get to degrowth willingly or not is a haunting question.