|
Would low CO2 be enough of a problem that any sequestration technology capable of reversing would double as a potential doomsday weapon? I really want the answer to be yes.
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Accretionist posted:Would low CO2 be enough of a problem that any sequestration technology capable of reversing would double as a potential doomsday weapon? Dude, just come out and say that you want to kill as many people as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
It's an amusing wrinkle in any sequestration-based hopes and dreams. We'd need to approach it like we do nuclear weapons technology.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Honestly not trying to be negative here, but this paragraph is a really good summary of why CCS is so difficult on scales that matter: Also as far as I can tell that system isn't sequestering a single gram of carbon. It's just concentrating it so it can be used to grow bigger salads.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
using gdp opportunity cost as concern troll for climate change is the epitome of not getting it
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:using gdp opportunity cost as concern troll for climate change is the epitome of not getting it It's super practical, though. For those at the top, progress often requires getting bad people to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. For the general public, it's immediately graspable as GDP growth/decline is a familiar image.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:It's an amusing wrinkle in any sequestration-based hopes and dreams. You mean build as many as possible regardless of expense in the fears that some other country is also doing it? Yes, I agree.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Heheeeeey, let's have some more great news But wait there's more! https://twitter.com/emorwee/status/869941131030790144 We had a good run.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:It's super practical, though. For those at the top, progress often requires getting bad people to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. For the general public, it's immediately graspable as GDP growth/decline is a familiar image. practical centrism is so pre-trump thinking (pre-obama even... pre-bush... has it *ever* worked?)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Think how easy things would be if we had governments that controlled capitalism instead of the other way around.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
You hear that? It's the beautiful sound of silence coming from the "GOD i hate all these NIHILISTS in here that don't just want to BUILD COMMUNITY and write their SENATORS" crew. It's the one silver lining of Trump - the silencing of the lanyards and wannabe lanyards who think respecting the process will make positive progress
call to action fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
so, do other nations pull out of the Paris Agreement because we did? or are we just the big stupid idiot in the room now? I do think that the next President will re-enter the agreement ASAP because there's quite possibly no one dumber than Trump
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:so, do other nations pull out of the Paris Agreement because we did? https://twitter.com/AP/status/869924987779637254
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:so, do other nations pull out of the Paris Agreement because we did? or are we just the big stupid idiot in the room now? You'll be the big idiot in the room. China would be stupid to not seize this opportunity to foster international cooperation that is not centered around the US. The same applies for the EU in which France especially has always been dreaming of this opportunity.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
spoiler alert the paris "agreement" has no enforcement mechanism and is a glorified "we pretend to care" piece of paper that does nothing
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
https://www.booksandpublishing.com....-flannery-text/ New book from Tim Flannery: he argues that we could use sea-going kelp farms to clean the ocean and feed the world. Carlosologist posted:so, do other nations pull out of the Paris Agreement because we did? or are we just the big stupid idiot in the room now? We're the big stupid idiot in the room. Most of the signatories are at least making baby steps towards meeting what it lays out. I read something on Reddit earlier this morning and double-checked it; the only nations that rejected the Agreement outright before now are Syria and Nicaragua. One's in the middle of a civil war, and the other didn't think the Agreement went far enough. Nicaragua in particular is having a hell of a time with environmental crises, like illegal logging, and it's trying to clean up its act. I've seen a couple of claims I can't source, that Nicaragua's actually pretty close to the curve right now as far as CO2 draw-down, so if it was a signatory to the Paris Agreement it'd actually be on track to meet the obligation. call to action posted:You hear that? It's the beautiful sound of silence coming from the "GOD i hate all these NIHILISTS in here that don't just want to BUILD COMMUNITY and write their SENATORS" crew. It's the one silver lining of Trump - the silencing of the lanyards and wannabe lanyards who think respecting the process will make positive progress Organization and involvement on the local level is still the best path forward for the individual citizen. Maybe that's writing to or calling your senators; maybe that's widespread grassroots effort. Tailor your response to your community and its needs. I know it's not sitting around tugging on your accelerationist eschaton boner, so the usual suspects are going to mock it, but it's the most constructive answer to the question of "What do I, just one dude, do about this?" It also has the benefit of getting reality-based people as participants in local/state government, so assuming we still have a functioning civilization in a few years, it's win-win. Accretionist posted:Would low CO2 be enough of a problem that any sequestration technology capable of reversing would double as a potential doomsday weapon? I don't think it would work fast enough. The "diamonds in the sky" dude, Stuart Licht, said once that if they gave him the budget to do it and roughly 10% of the Sahara Desert, he could return Earth's atmosphere to pre-industrial CO2 levels, but it would take a few years. brakeless posted:Also as far as I can tell that system isn't sequestering a single gram of carbon. It's just concentrating it so it can be used to grow bigger salads. Yeah, that's the plan: getting the CO2 out of the atmosphere so it can be used for something else. Like I said, it's baby steps; they're operating on the assumption that market forces will turn the captured CO2 into a commodity ("blue crude"), or at least that federal subsidies will kick in. It's capitalist as gently caress, but it's a pilot program and it could lead to something more useful down the road.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Tugging on one's boner, "widespread grassroots effort" [insert detail here], six of one half dozen of the other Also, why would anyone trust the Chinese government about literally anything
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Carbon sequestration is a fools errand. Remember when they thought they could throw the world's iron into the iron limited southern ocean to create a large enough algal bloom to get us back to carbon neutral? Good times
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
call to action posted:Tugging on one's boner, "widespread grassroots effort" [insert detail here], six of one half dozen of the other Modern Americans live in a nation that only exists because of grassroots effort. Because of organization, demonstration, and civil disobedience, I got to go to school instead of spending my adolescence in a coal mine. It's got a pretty good track record overall, although it's fallen behind some in recent years. Still, it's what the political/cultural opposition does, and it works. Grover Norquist got a wild hair up his rear end when he was twelve about how all taxes are bad, and he grew up to turbo-gently caress the nation's economy. Never doubt that one person can make a difference.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Ice? Pshh I have your albedo right here *unfurls 15,000,000 km^2 canvas of white paint*
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Yeah, that's the plan: getting the CO2 out of the atmosphere so it can be used for something else. Like I said, it's baby steps; they're operating on the assumption that market forces will turn the captured CO2 into a commodity ("blue crude"), or at least that federal subsidies will kick in. It's capitalist as gently caress, but it's a pilot program and it could lead to something more useful down the road. Right, but in that case the best they can do is reducing emissions by substituting carbon from the atmosphere for "frozen" carbon. I can't help but feel like there are lots of better ways to reduce current emissions by one percent than building 250000 of these plants, so if they have to be subsidized with political action and public money, they're kind of a waste.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
brakeless posted:Right, but in that case the best they can do is reducing emissions by substituting carbon from the atmosphere for "frozen" carbon. I can't help but feel like there are lots of better ways to reduce current emissions by one percent than building 250000 of these plants, so if they have to be subsidized with political action and public money, they're kind of a waste. That assumes the technology never improves and that we never find any more uses for the CO2. Off the top of my head, one of the big industrialized processes people were talking about was using calcium carbonate to make cement, which would cut emissions and sequester the CO2. Right now, the pilot project is using the CO2 to fuel greenhouses, but it's a pilot project, and part of the point is to find more and better uses for the CO2 they're capturing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:spoiler alert the paris "agreement" has no enforcement mechanism The same could be said of all international treaties, doesn't mean they don't impact nations decision-making.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Modern Americans live in a nation that only exists because of grassroots effort. Because of organization, demonstration, and civil disobedience, I got to go to school instead of spending my adolescence in a coal mine. It's got a pretty good track record overall, although it's fallen behind some in recent years. You're so hopelessly naive. It's super easy to be an individual who makes a difference when the cause you support makes rich people wealthier. Not so easy when it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:You're so hopelessly naive. It's super easy to be an individual who makes a difference when the cause you support makes rich people wealthier. Not so easy when it doesn't. If you're looking for a more recent example, there's always gay marriage. A lot of people put a lot of work into making that happen.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Honestly not trying to be negative here, but this paragraph is a really good summary of why CCS is so difficult on scales that matter: Scale is one of the main reasons why CCS will never work meaningfully- If we could instantly create magical duplicate versions of every greenhouse gas emitting power plant, machine, car, industrial/agricultural/all other processes - which absorb rather than emit GHGs - that is literally duplicate the entire earth's economy with magical negative emission versions of itself, then we would be at zero net emissions. We need to be in negative net emissions to counteract climate change. So if we then doubled that magical negative emission economy's size we would be at negative 100% emissions. (Normal economy running alongside 2 negative GHG economies) Then if we ran in that state for 50 years we'd be back to 1970's era CO2 equivalent concentrations. So we just need to triple the size of the earth's economy without expending any extra resources or energy and have all of the growth be out of magical GHG absorbing, non-energy or resource using technology, then hang around for a fair few decades till we're out of the immediate danger zone. Also as I'm sure has been mentioned here before, it is much harder to capture and store gasses than release them.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Modern Americans live in a nation that only exists because of grassroots effort. Because of organization, demonstration, and civil disobedience, I got to go to school instead of spending my adolescence in a coal mine. It's got a pretty good track record overall, although it's fallen behind some in recent years. That's all national in scope. We didn't do poo poo about restricting child labor elsewhere, in fact there are probably more children working wage labor today than at any point in history. Maybe your post would make more sense if climate change were a national-level problem. Wanderer posted:If you're looking for a more recent example, there's always gay marriage. A lot of people put a lot of work into making that happen. Gay marriage doesn't threaten anyone in power or their money.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:If you're looking for a more recent example, there's always gay marriage. A lot of people put a lot of work into making that happen. Plumps posted:If we could instantly create magical duplicate versions of every greenhouse gas emitting power plant, machine, car, industrial/agricultural/all other processes
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
call to action posted:Gay marriage doesn't threaten anyone in power or their money. Also, embracing cultural issues help to rationalize major issues that effect most everyone, like income inequality, by never or shying away from addressing it. Ferdinand Bardamu fucked around with this message at 19:43 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:The same could be said of all international treaties, doesn't mean they don't impact nations decision-making. Uhh no it couldn't there are enforcement mechanisms in all kinds of international treaties. NAFTA ring a bell?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Organization and involvement on the local level is still the best path forward for the individual citizen. Maybe that's writing to or calling your senators; maybe that's widespread grassroots effort. Tailor your response to your community and its needs. As I said before, Rastor posted:For those who want political solutions this thread is really lovely. Here are some non-lovely threads: Go to the other threads. Go make a difference. Keep posting affirmations for the nihilists here in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:If you're looking for a more recent example, there's always gay marriage. A lot of people put a lot of work into making that happen. Yeah mostly companies that began advertising in gay magazines twenty years prior when they realized DINKs were an amazing segment with enormous amounts of disposable income. Gay marriage is super profitable why do you think companies are so quick to boycott any homophobic politicians?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
lol at comparing climate change to gay marriage just holy poo poo liberalism owns itself so hard
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
call to action posted:That's all national in scope. We didn't do poo poo about restricting child labor elsewhere, in fact there are probably more children working wage labor today than at any point in history. Maybe your post would make more sense if climate change were a national-level problem. I think I've even said this specifically to you before: you're going way too macro on this, particularly when we're discussing the value of individual, local action. It's like you're trying to keep the problem as big as you can in order to stay as depressed as possible, the same way that politicians will act as if any solution that doesn't solve the entire problem at once isn't worth pursuing. "The problem's too big to solve" is as much of a climate denial tactic as denying there's a problem at all, because either way, you're still blocking off whatever solutions or mitigation strategies might exist. Climate change is a world-spanning problem, but it's also highly modular. You can and should break it down by actionable spheres of influence: nations, districts, precincts, states, individual geographical features, etc. Addressing it in one place still contributes to the whole, and when you're talking about individual action, that's the only realistic way to approach it, especially right now when the Internet is still a perfectly viable force multiplier. Find a problem in your area, work to solve it, then move on; meet people along the way, keep your contacts active, document your progress in a video log or on Twitter or something, and see what you end up learning. Maybe you end up with enough political connections that you can bully a congressman. Maybe you end up investing in regenerative businesses, or as part owner of a bamboo farm, or you meet a person who Kickstarts something that ends up being a perfectly viable carbon-negative/neutral technology. Maybe you just end up having planted a bunch of trees that didn't grow. The point is that you've at least done something. Even if it means nothing on the world scale, it means plenty on the local scale... and at the end of the day, you exist on the local scale. Considering yourself a failure before you start because you weren't born with enough stroke to change the course of history is some A-level depression logic. A Buttery Pastry posted:The wedding industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, which would see a major bump from opening it up to a whole new demographic which on average has a lot more disposable income. Do you really think that gay marriage got legalized due to being financially subsidized by powerful wedding-industry lobbyists? Is that the argument you're going with here?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Do you really think that gay marriage got legalized due to being financially subsidized by powerful wedding-industry lobbyists? Is that the argument you're going with here? It's more that legalizing gay marriage didn't make the oligarchs who run the country take a gigantic financial haircut
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Do you really think that gay marriage got legalized due to being financially subsidized by powerful wedding-industry lobbyists? Is that the argument you're going with here? Seriously go read a history of the normalization of advertising in gay publications. It predates gay marriage by decades.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Rastor posted:Go to the other threads. Go make a difference. Yeah, you're probably right.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
What's the deal with accusing anyone who thinks we can't stop climate change of being a nihilist? Do you know what nihilist means? Like I mean I guess it sounds pretty cool to say "well, you believe in nothing!" but there's a big difference between not believing in anything and believing something can't be changed
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What's the deal with accusing anyone who thinks we can't stop climate change of being a nihilist? Do you know what nihilist means? Yes? 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Rastor posted:Yes? Ok so now connect the dots and explain how people who believe we can't stop climate change "reject all religious and moral principle in the belief that life is meaningless"
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:10
|
|