this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
1365 points (95.2% liked)
Memes
45132 readers
1326 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The interesting part are those who still don’t write letters to their congressmen and still vote for climate deniers. I just can’t.
It would be insanely easy to solve: Not one of the billionaires out there would recognize if they only had 999 mil left and neither would anybody else. That‘s a cool 10 trillion to pay towards climate change. You‘re welcome.
That money was earned using earth, so to saving earth it goes back (because no earth, no money and our billionaire overlords suprisingly havent saved us yet.)
Though I agree with you on taking money from the rich people, that's mostly not how it works. Most rich persons has most of his "worth" in stocks. Even scammer musk's worth mostly is "worth" because of his ownership of Tesla and the such. He doesn't actually have that money.
Most importantly: It's not insanely easy to solve, Sven if you pump in trillions. Even if we stop pumping carbon in the air tomorrow it will still take centuries until the atmosphere is back to normal, barring any carbon capture.
The problem with is that the extra CO2 in the air comes from energy we took from burning fossil fuels. If we want to capture it back, we need to spend the same mount of energy that the world spent for the past, say, 2 centuries, from non carbon sources to get that done. This energy does not include the energy that the world needs to function.
That is an insane amount of energy that, again, has to come from non carbon emitting sources.
Also, until all energy comes from non carbon emitting sources, carbon capture is useless because if both you'll spent 100 carbon for each, say, 50-70 (optimistically) carbon you capture.
If I say "Were not even close to 100% non carbon emissions in energy creation" it's a huge understatement. I believe something around 10% of our energy production is non carbon emitting. Cars are not included.
Making all out cars electrical is also cute. It's a nice thought if it weren't that all that electricity still mostly comes from CO2 emitting sources so including conversion losses electrical cars may actually send more CO2 in the atmosphere.
You want to actually solve this?
Make ALL our electrical generation non CO2 emitting in the next 10 years. Air and solar are cute, but fractional and will remain that, probably for ever. We need nuclear power plants like there is no tomorrow in all countries, even the "bad" ones.
This obviously isn't going to happen.
We will likely end up with some form of atmospheric engineering where we're going to meas with the atmosphere, seeding clouds, or pumping other chemicals in there that negate the effects of CO2. I'm unsure what the results of that will be though
Either way, you and I will NOT see the end of this, that is for our children's children
Because nuclear reactors can be built in a week!
Did I say that?
How else do you want to get carbon neutral in 10y since you already decided wind and solar are toys?
Besides, nuclear is not carbon neutral. Like, not at all. Stop talking about things you don’t understand, thank you.
Sorry to ruin this dream, but not a single developed country (and most likely not a single non-developed either) has a remote chance of being carbon neutral in 10years.
Reason number one is "carbon-neutral" is yet another greenwashing marketing idea involving emissions compensations that are just not there.
We've seen now that planting trees will probably not do any good: we already see trees growing failure rate increasing due to excessive heating. They grow slower already, making all compensation calculations wrong, and they'll burn in wildfires in summer, releasing all the carbon they captured.
The second reason is the insanely high dependency we have to cheap oil. You need to convert haul truck, small trucks, buses, etc. to electric all while you turn the grid to 0 emission.
You need to convert cargo ships to electric otherwise your net neutrality will need to conveniently ignore all importations and exportations.
You need to convert all farm machines to 0 emissions and abandon quite a lot of the chemistry considered for granted today, which means yields will drop.
You need to convert blast furnaces to alternative energies. Today, there is almost nothing done there other than "we'll get hydrogen" that everybody know cannot be produced in the volume they need, let alone at an acceptable price.
And no energy source whatsoever is carbon neutral!
Solar panels need quite some metal and semicon-based manufacturing techniques. Wind farm need concrete for their anchoring, and use advanced materials to build. They both have a limited lifespan, after which you need to recycle (By the way: noticed that when "recycling" is advertised, no one mentions if it's rectcling for the same usage and not recycled to lower grade material we can't use back to produce the same device? That's because we just can't get them back with the same purity level...) and make some replacement, that will again have a share of emissions.
Short of producing absolutely everything in the chains of supplies locally, you will import emissions from another country
Any human activity is basically emitting or causing greenhouses emissions.
And while you think all of that can be managed, we already have all signals to red on the natural resources: we can't extract lithium fast enough, and we may not want to given how dirty the mines are. We may run out of some metals we rely on.
And most of these issues are eluded in the great plans, because it's too complicated or we simply have no solution and no one wants to say it up and loud.
Now, the good/bad news: all of this will end because we're also running out of cheap oil.
It's a good news because that will put a break in humans activities and so greenhouse gas emissions.
But it's bad because not a single country is preparing for the aftermath, and that means... they will collapse!
Why the fuck do you feel the need to write a wall of text like that to me? It was the commentator above who spoke about 10y FFS
How else? How about not? You simply don't because you can't. Barring some weird exceptions, no country will be able to be carbon neutral in 10 years, let alone the entire world.
Yes we need to do loads of work, and yes, nuclear will form a huge part because we don't have another choice. Nuclear will cause CO2 too, yes, during building mostly and nothing near what coal or similar plants do.
I'm simply saying we can (and must) do nuclear next to solar and wind.
Either way it doesn't matter since entieht you nor I make those decisions and those that do mostly don't give a shit as long as they get their paycheck
Edit: you want to make a real change?
Increase taxes on carbon fuels significantly every year. Prohibit the construction and sale of useless throwaway products like fashion that lasts 3 wears until it breaks, phones that will work for only 1-2 years. Invest heavily in improving recycling so that we can recycle everything. Invest in alternative nuclear fuels like thorium so that more countries can go nuclear without having to worry about bombs. Stop the "delivery in one day! " economy, which basically requires alAmazon to be destroyed . Redesign American continent cities completely to no longer be car dependent so that people can walk and cycle for 95% of their needs and use public transportation or shared cars for the rest.
Those are some insane but required solutions if we want to stop climate change.
Car dependent cities are unsustainable, financially and environmentally. Our throwaway economy is unsustainable. Our dependency on fossil fuels in unsustainable
Did you forget you were the one talking about 10y? I literally quoted you. What the fuck is on with you people writing walls of texts barking up the wrong tree? 😂