|
Trabisnikof posted:There is the incentive to prevent harm even if we aren't approaching an apocalyptic cliff. To answer your question about when will be too late, I have no idea and I think it is hopelessly naive for someone to claim they know that line. There are too many factors and it is better to error on the side of trying too long than giving up too early. But does removing cheap AC units from India really prevent harm? What's to say it wouldn't be less harmful to allow them to develop as they want while we take more drastic action? Your problem is that you're approaching these measures as policy that will reduce harm, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that is the case. Reducing emissions is not going to reduce harm unless it involves the first world taking major action. The developing nations cannot afford to, won't, shouldn't be expected to, and have nothing to do with the changing climate we see today. Doing anything other than acknowledging this and loving off with our backdoor imperialism is harmful. quote:That's why it is such a big deal that is a global agreement. Like under your logic the CFC treaties wouldn't have worked. If you don't understand the differences in dealing with the O-zone layer crisis and climate change by this point I don't even know if I can help you.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:But does removing cheap AC units from India really prevent harm? What's to say it wouldn't be less harmful to allow them to develop as they want while we take more drastic action? Your problem is that you're approaching these measures as policy that will reduce harm, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that is the case. Reducing emissions is not going to reduce harm unless it involves the first world taking major action. The developing nations cannot afford to, won't, shouldn't be expected to, and have nothing to do with the changing climate we see today. Doing anything other than acknowledging this and loving off with our backdoor imperialism is harmful. Do you not understand that HFCs are really really bad for the climate? This isn't about taking away AC from India, this is about stopping using a cheap and horrible chemical. Did you even glance at that NRDC article I linked? It not only goes over why this is a big pollutant but also has links to papers specifying which alternative chemicals which Indian chemical company can switch to using instead. Meanwhile, the developed nations are banning the chemical before they ask India to do the same. quote:If you don't understand the differences in dealing with the O-zone layer crisis and climate change by this point I don't even know if I can help you. Actually the CFC bans are used as mode example international treaties on emissions. Of course, we got those treaties easy and climate will be much much harder as we've seen. For example CFCs hurt white people making it easier to get international agreement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you not understand that HFCs are really really bad for the climate? This isn't about taking away AC from India, this is about stopping using a cheap and horrible chemical. Do you not understand that just because a chemical is bad for the climate doesn't necessarily mean banning that chemical will prevent harm. Do you think having the price of AC units go up in India could lead to any harm? Could that harm potentially outweigh the benefits? I haven't seen any analysis that takes this into account other than saying "yeah, it's a problem" quote:Actually the CFC bans are used as mode example international treaties on emissions. Of course, we got those treaties easy and climate will be much much harder as we've seen. Yes and it's a horrible analogue. The CFC ban was the result of realizing an immediate and dire problem and acting on it. Climate change is slow, costs way more, involves basically a complete reorganization of the economy and complete global cooperation on all of those things. It's basically disingenuous to even compare the two other than to say "man, this problem would be a lot easier to deal with if there was a giant hole in the o-zone we could point to" (even that is just solving one of the six reasons Climate change is considered a "wicked" problem).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Do you know why HFCs are widely used? Because CFC regulation made them the next best choice. If that's our "model regulation" than loving LOL
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you not understand that just because a chemical is bad for the climate doesn't necessarily mean banning that chemical will prevent harm. Do you think having the price of AC units go up in India could lead to any harm? Could that harm potentially outweigh the benefits? I haven't seen any analysis that takes this into account other than saying "yeah, it's a problem" Cutting HFCs is an important part of cutting global carbon emissions: quote:HFCs—used in air conditioners, refrigerators, insulating foams, some aerosols, and other products—have up to 10,000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Though accounting for only 1-2 percent of total global warming now, HFCs are the fastest growing climate pollutants because of the skyrocketing demand for air conditioning and refrigeration in developing markets such as India. Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol is essential to protecting the planet from climate change, and could contribute savings of up to half a degree towards the 1.5˚Celcius pathway outlined in the Paris Agreement. quote:Yes and it's a horrible analogue. The CFC ban was the result of realizing an immediate and dire problem and acting on it. Climate change is slow, costs way more, involves basically a complete reorganization of the economy and complete global cooperation on all of those things. It's basically disingenuous to even compare the two other than to say "man, this problem would be a lot easier to deal with if there was a giant hole in the o-zone we could point to". Except the post I was responding to was saying "international treaties can ever regulate emissions because of cheater" so the CFC ban is a good example of that even if the reasons you list make it much harder to get the treaty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except the post I was responding to was saying "international treaties can ever regulate emissions because of cheater" so the CFC ban is a good example of that even if the reasons you list make it much harder to get the treaty. The problem is you can figure out who's cheating when it comes to CFCs. Good loving luck tracking carbon emissions and figure out who is cheating. When their society collapses and they have to burn the forests to cook food are you going to go over there and tell them they are cheating?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The problem is you can figure out who's cheating when it comes to GHGs. Good loving luck tracking carbon emissions and figure out who is cheating. When their society collapses and they have to burn the forests to cook food are you going to go over there and tell them they are cheating? Yes if society collapses enforcement of international law won't work. But the whole point is enforcement beforehand obviously. Meanwhile there are lots of enforceable regulatory models like the ones I've listed. Like these HFC proposals, it is actually something that can be measured. Is this country making this chemical still?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes if society collapses enforcement of international law won't work. But the whole point is enforcement beforehand obviously. If their society collapses it won't be because they didn't follow international law, it will be because we put 120 years of carbon in the air and ignored the science of the time that pretty clearly knew co2 was a green house gas but it wasn't a big enough problem to matter. Now we've kicked the can to 2016, how much longer til the developed nations stop acting like this is a problem they have to wait for global coordination on and starting taking steps TODAY to prevent the horrors every climate scientist is shouting from the rooftops is coming. quote:Meanwhile there are lots of enforceable regulatory models like the ones I've listed. Like these HFC proposals, it is actually something that can be measured. Is this country making this chemical still? The problem is that the "enforceable regulatory models" we seem to go with are the ones that impact the developing world and not us. We should not be enforcing poo poo overseas until we deal with our own problems in a honest way. Like I said, this is the path to developed nations treating developing nations as aggressors and using force to enforce these treaties when poo poo gets bad. Even though they can't, and the more they try to enforce it and lower the standard of living overseas the worse it's going to get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:If their society collapses it won't be because they didn't follow international law, it will be because we put 120 years of carbon in the air and ignored the science of the time that pretty clearly knew co2 was a green house gas but it wasn't a big enough problem to matter. Now we've kicked the can to 2016, how much longer til the developed nations stop acting like this is a problem they have to wait for global coordination on and starting taking steps TODAY to prevent the horrors every climate scientist is shouting from the rooftops is coming. I completely understand your frustration but unfortunately the great injustice of the past 120 doesn't change the global power dynamics and as much as I agree with you that we should deal with climate change in a way that doesn't hurt the developing world, the crisis is so bad that any and all action we can take that effectively reduces emissions should be taken even if it fails to address systemic discrimination in the process. We don't have time to wait for US or EU action before helping out the developed world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I completely understand your frustration but unfortunately the great injustice of the past 120 doesn't change the global power dynamics and as much as I agree with you that we should deal with climate change in a way that doesn't hurt the developing world, the crisis is so bad that any and all action we can take that effectively reduces emissions should be taken even if it fails to address systemic discrimination in the process. See you don't get it. We're not helping the developed world. We're just ensuring their lives will be even shittier once climate change ramps up. As long as you cling to the idea that lowering the current standard of living in India is a reduction in harm, we won't see eye to eye on this. It doesn't matter how many papers you post about how bad the chemical is. It's literally a non-factor in the grand scheme of our current climate issues. If you really want to help India, we need to act here today and start taking responsibility for our actions over the past century. Anything else is harmful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:See you don't get it. We're not helping the developed world. We're just ensuring their lives will be even shittier once climate change ramps up. So any action that negatively impacts cost of living in India isn't worth doing until the developed work is well into a negative carbon economy? Is banning coal exports unethical to you if that might drive up fuel prices in India?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except the post I was responding to was saying "international treaties can ever regulate emissions because of cheater" so the CFC ban is a good example of that even if the reasons you list make it much harder to get the treaty. Yeah I mean you don't have cheaters when the replacement chemical is also cheap as gently caress, you will have cheaters when it's not. CFC regulation isn't proof of poo poo because HFCs were easy to switch to any didn't cost much more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So any action that negatively impacts cost of living in India isn't worth doing until the developed work is well into a negative carbon economy? If it involves us enforcing a treaty that doesn't have any sort of equal cost from the developed world, yeah. They ban HFCs, what are we going to do? Ban the same chemical we don't need any more because we're rich enough that it doesn't matter? How is that fair? quote:Is banning coal exports unethical to you if that might drive up fuel prices in India? Yes, banning coal exports would be unethical. If we want to fix that, start providing(no not selling, giving) windmills and other forms of infrastructure to replace it, don't just tell them they can't do something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:If it involves us enforcing a treaty that doesn't have any sort of equal cost from the developed world, yeah. Except the treaty would have the west both giving money to help the transition and banning the chemicals in their own country first? quote:Yes, banning coal exports would be unethical. If we want to fix that, start providing(no not selling, giving) windmills and other forms of infrastructure to replace it, don't just tell them they can't do something. Wow, yeah I don't think your position is one that can be made to work with the realities of the world. If you honestly think it is bad for the USA to stop coal companies from selling coal overseas unless the USA gives away a free renewable power grid to the developing world first, then yes there are probably no ethical options left in your book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except the treaty would have the west both giving money to help the transition and banning the chemicals in their own country first? I don't believe that's anywhere close to equal cost. How much carbon in the atmosphere is from India? How much is from the first world? We should be spending $100 for every $1 (ratio should probably be even bigger, can't find the chart showing who's contributed to the climate crisis) they spend on any form of climate mitigation. quote:Wow, yeah I don't think your position is one that can be made to work with the realities of the world. If you honestly think it is bad for the USA to stop coal companies from selling coal overseas unless the USA gives away a free renewable power grid to the developing world first, then yes there are probably no ethical options left in your book. That are politically realistic? No. That's why I'm pretty convinced we're hosed regardless of what we do. We're signed up for "unknown unknowns" and no amount of international law is going to change that. The only way it changes is if the developed world takes responsibility for what they've done. And this isn't about ethical options, they are options that actually attempt to solve the problem as opposed to making it worse, which is what the policy you're advocating for would do. edit. Found a good chart:  This is where the discussion starts and ends, anything else is bullshit. It only gets worse from there if you start to consider the fact that a lot of the emissions in developing countries are the direct result of western imperialism to transform their economy to fit our needs. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Developed/undeveloped, winners vs losers does not matter in the end result, which is CO2 PPM. Millions/billions will die, there are going to be losers. If an effective solution means there are lots of losers, that's too bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Developed/undeveloped, winners vs losers does not matter in the end result, which is CO2 PPM. Millions/billions will die, there are going to be losers. If an effective solution means there are lots of losers, that's too bad. When an effective solution comes along let us know. Because right now the developed world seems to think it can just throw costs at developing nations while doing nothing and then hope they follow the rules. This isn't a question of whether it's worth imposing costs that reflect the externalities we're dealing with, it's a question of whether we can even attempt to enforce that overseas while we do nothing of the sort here. I just don't see them taking it lying down and I don't think the US can realistically enforce any of these treaties. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That are politically realistic? No. That's why I'm pretty convinced we're hosed regardless of what we do. We're signed up for "unknown unknowns" and no amount of international law is going to change that. The only way it changes is if the developed world takes responsibility for what they've done. You want to look at realistic options that have a basis in history, reality and real effectiveness, without considering ethics and whatnot? Sure, we have solutions. Some of that will actually happen regardless of what we do. I'm talking about a malthusian hunger catastrophe, or simply a limited nuclear exchange. Say, between india and pakistan. Reduce the world population and those growing nations into smoldering cinders, and this will have a very noticable effect on the climate. Think Gengis Khan, only the regrowth over previously habitated areas in a Chernobyl-like fashion will most likely have a very significant impact on carbon level reduction. Same with the bubonic plague: Europe experienced a great golden age after the plague, a massive economic boom for the survivors coupled with plentyful food made for great times. For the surving half. Now let's be honest with ourselves here. Do you think this hasn't crossed the minds of some of the extreme right wing populists plagueing western europe and to an extent the US lately? We can act now with whatever options we have and almost any sacrifice made by any part of the world, developed or not, will be far preferable to the inevitable alternatives coming our way, be they human, political or natural.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:We can act now with whatever options we have and almost any sacrifice made by any part of the world, developed or not, will be far preferable to the inevitable alternatives coming our way, be they human, political or natural. Except no course of action we can credibly take at this point will prevent any of the inevitable alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
call to action posted:Except no course of action we can credibly take at this point will prevent any of the inevitable alternatives. According to the call to action credibility model sure
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:According to the call to action credibility model sure According to reality, where we're continuously doing too little too late, celebrating failures as victory, and taking no responsibility for the giant mess we've created. Like I said, if you want to look at lowering the standard of living in India to reduce emissions as a win, that's on you. That's a step in the wrong direction imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Like I said, if you want to look at lowering the standard of living in India to reduce emissions as a win, that's on you. That's a step in the wrong direction imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Seriously, if you want to talk about what comes next, don't argue about politics, statistics, and how hosed we are. Read about the science. http://www.popsci.com/germany-signals-intent-to-ban-internal-combustion-engines http://www.popsci.com/what-everyone-can-do-to-help-declining-bee-population http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/new...arbon-emissions Political will may be in short supply, but there's already a lot of motion here. I'm not even talking about "magical thinking"; it's becoming pretty clear that the next big jobs boom will be in renewables and carbon capture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:You want to look at realistic options that have a basis in history, reality and real effectiveness, without considering ethics and whatnot? Sure, we have solutions. Some of that will actually happen regardless of what we do. Sounds like the plot to a movie starring Benedict Cumberbatch. Imo, the biggest hurdle to combating climate change is a social one. Everyone is constantly distracted by petty tyrants flexing, forever war in the middle east, black people being treated like poo poo by the system or whatever pet issue tickles you. These are serious problems but compared to climate change, are in your face. Its as if the problem we created has such a broad scope that it seems impossible to fix it given that we can't fix more immediate ones with smaller scopes. With that said we should be convincing people that, yes, global warming is happening and is a problem, at first finding out what groups are receptive and targeting them. Then creating grassroots efforts, small local groups, larger regional groups, political groups, career-specific groups, fundraising groups and, lobbyists. On a larger scope, to help elect politicians who want to combat climate change with effective methods like nuclear energy and creating political coalitions. An example of this might be to create a local group and ask school boards or a state education department to have a unit on climate change in middle school and high school. Maybe begin a national organization of teachers to disseminate information on climate change. Also its important not to act depressed or manic because nothing can be done and we're all gonna die slowly as the heat boils our eyes and melts our livers. Don't stand there with a megaphone screaming that that we must return to the cave from whence we came as penance for acidifying our oceans and eating jellyfish because that is all that will be left, better get used to it now. I'm sure this kind of thing is already being done but I think it can be more aggressive and complete without it turning into harassing or annoying most people. Furthermore,
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Get ready for the new normal, where we start treating developing countries as if their impacts on the climate are acts of aggression. There's a really great chart out there that has the cumulative emissions by country since 1900, anyone have it? NewForumSoftware posted:The developing world simply will not watch the US play protectionist with climate policies and try to push all impacts onto their own populations. NewForumSoftware posted:
He's right. This is where the whole India & HFCs discussion, and the larger controversy around similar events, starts and ends. You think someone like Modi is going to give two shits about Paris if it means that he has to go back on his promise to bring India into the first world? The wave of the future is the global south looking at the global north and figuring out that rather than them kneecapping their own development, maybe we should reducing our ridiculous consumption levels first. And that means more than electric vehicles or recycling or vague promises to hit 50% renewables by 20XX. I'm not looking forward to what HRC reacts when folks that we used to be able to cow with threats decide they have less to lose by telling the US to gently caress off rather than waiting for some 'progressive' environmental policy to trickle down. call to action posted:It's so hopelessly naive to think that anyone's going to stick to these agreements when not doing so provides massive economic advantages. Cheating will always be the best option, just like any Tragedy of the Commons situation. This is actually backwards, the best option is always to NOT cheat because doing so fucks over you, everyone else, and generations to come, the mess we're in should be evidence enough of that. Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:This is actually backwards, the best option is always to NOT cheat because doing so fucks over you, everyone else, and generations to come, the mess we're in should be evidence enough of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
The fact that the US and EU are responsible for most of the emissions to date does not suddenly make it ethical for developing countries to build up a monster coal infrastructure or slash-and-burn regional forests etc. Our past behavior was the mistake, not the template for appropriate action. We should definitely be working to provide assistance to developing countries (I don't think it's too late to combine climate mitigation with social justice, particularly in some of the EU Green parties), but our failure to do so at a sufficient level doesn't mean we should instead keep our foot on the gas. Arguing that decreasing coal production is unethical because it could raise the price of energy in India is completely batshit crazy. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
It only costs a couple of billion dollars to dump enough sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce global temperatures by 1 degree C for a decade - and the climatic effects of this will be immediate. Given its low cost and instantaneous results, I think geoengineering is inevitable at this point. If the US or Europe don't want to do it because they don't feel the brunt of the warming, then India, China or Bangladesh will. Who, or what, will stop them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
parcs posted:If the US or Europe don't want to do it because they don't feel the brunt of the warming, then India, China or Bangladesh will. Who, or what, will stop them? Their neighbors possibly. Or other countries that think they are being seriously hosed over because of those geo engineering actions. Water is the most serious of buisnesses and if a countries water supply is being hosed with, or only percieved to be hosed with, by another country's unilateral geo engineering actions, war is a very real possibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:Imo, the biggest hurdle to combating climate change is a social one. Everyone is constantly distracted by petty tyrants flexing, forever war in the middle east, black people being treated like poo poo by the system or whatever pet issue tickles you. These are serious problems but compared to climate change, are in your face. Its as if the problem we created has such a broad scope that it seems impossible to fix it given that we can't fix more immediate ones with smaller scopes. We have been doing an okay job of letting all our kids know this crisis is looming but it turns out even they won't tackle it, because of the basic human nature to go for the easy win. The few people who want to go in on this for the long haul (instead of, say, banding together against saying mean words on the Internet) are easily pushed aside. I wish I had a good solution to that behavior but it is extremely difficult to engineer against human nature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Looks like the next debate won't include a discussion of climate change either but at least we get to pretend that the national debt is a problem again. Cool cool cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
I think the biggest hurdles to galvanize action is the constant, tomorrow is going to happen and it will be very much like today. And if there are unpleasant consequences it will be because of decades of the actions of "other people". And even when there are unpleasant goings ons, scientists can never say with any kind of certainty if it was due to climate change or just a rare event. :/ This guy does a good job of generally elucidating the average human's failure to appreciate risk from a distance and growth and stuff. Its a bit long and pitched at a not very high level but it left a marked impression on me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I think the biggest hurdles to galvanize action is the constant, tomorrow is going to happen and it will be very much like today. And if there are unpleasant consequences it will be because of decades of the actions of "other people". And even when there are unpleasant goings ons, scientists can never say with any kind of certainty if it was due to climate change or just a rare event. :/ Bartlett is a baller for sure http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3143&context=clr Is a good academic article going over why Climate Change is considered a "wicked" or "super wicked" problem Noah Raford has also done some interesting work in this area, http://noahraford.com/?p=48 is about the best high level explanation of what we're seeing in the world today. Wish the guy had uploaded his whole talk but the two clips he has say more than enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
parcs posted:It only costs a couple of billion dollars to dump enough sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce global temperatures by 1 degree C for a decade - and the climatic effects of this will be immediate. Given its low cost and instantaneous results, I think geoengineering is inevitable at this point. If the US or Europe don't want to do it because they don't feel the brunt of the warming, then India, China or Bangladesh will. Who, or what, will stop them? Got a source that shows how totally easy dropping temps by 1C for a decade for only a few billion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Looks like the next debate won't include a discussion of climate change either but at least we get to pretend that the national debt is a problem again. What would be the point of having a discussion on climate change when one side staunchly denies its existence?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
parcs posted:It only costs a couple of billion dollars to dump enough sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce global temperatures by 1 degree C for a decade - and the climatic effects of this will be immediate. Given its low cost and instantaneous results, I think geoengineering is inevitable at this point. If the US or Europe don't want to do it because they don't feel the brunt of the warming, then India, China or Bangladesh will. Who, or what, will stop them? I believed this myself, but I've concluded it's kind of sloppy thinking. How would a nation like China or whatever actually decide to proceed with a unilateral geoengineering plan? What would be the actual chain leading up to such a decision? It would likely be politically difficult, even if the country in question was directly suffering under climate change. Would they still proceed over the strenuous objections of the international community? Any state sophisticated enough to try geoengineering is likely to recognize the serious possibility of unintended consequences, and would prefer not to be blamed for super acid rain etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Right - keep in mind that this type of geoengineering would redouble the acidification of the oceans, hastening the collapse of fisheries on which many of these developing countries rely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Right - keep in mind that this type of geoengineering would redouble the acidification of the oceans, hastening the collapse of fisheries on which many of these developing countries rely. And acidifying the oceans further might well kill our greatest carbon sink and oxygen producer. Not to mention if we get enthusiastic enough, we might well get our very own Perm-Trias extinction event as oceans turn anoxic and create massive amounts of hydrogen sulfide gas, killing everything breathing and growing on the planet. Whacky fun!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Venus is cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Is it possible to just built some sort of massive carbon sinks, so we can literally just capture and bury the poo poo in huge amounts in a short period of time? Like forests but faster and denser, and then we just toss it all into actual carbon dumps and bury it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:41
|
|
