News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I mean this is a pretty weak ass take and it's not even really right. Like after this "passes" we will be fully locked in to rocketing off the edge of the climate abyss and there is nothing anyone could possibly do to prevent it. They will try with Geo engineering but that's a toss up at best.
No one will remember anyone.
Climate change has a relatively cheap and easy solution.
Aresol sprays can buy a few decades of time if things get too hot.
We already have cheap solar and cheap batteries are becoming a reality. We only need a cheap, non-intermittent energy source to provide baseload energy. Cheap nuclear power is possible and can fill that niche - we had the tech in the past and China has it today.
For about $1T a fleet of reactors could be built to extract all the excess carbon from the atmosphere in 50 years, working in tandem with cheap solar energy and cheap batteries to power human civilization.
Its not cheap and not a solution.
It will give us a temporary reprieve at best. We still need to solve the issue by lowering the CO2 in the environment. Chemically speaking, you'll basically have to spend the same amount of energy to pull all the CO2 out as we got over the past 200 year by putting that CO2 in the atmosphere.
That is if we have 100% efficient machines, however. In reality most combustion engines get 30% at best. Electrical system to pull it out will do some 70%? Let's call it 50 on both, so you'll have to double the amount of energy that this cost twice.
Basically, to get CO2 back to preindustrial levels we'll have to spend 4x the amount of ALL the energy we've spent over the past 200 years.
You say it's cheap? Basically double all energy prices (and with that, the prices of everything and destroy all economies) for, say, the next 50 years or so and generate twice the amount of electricity we do now, and we'll be fine.
Why comment if you don't understand physics. I'm not saying turn the carbon into hydrocarbons, which is wat you are implying.
Carbon sequestration takes way less energy than the energy released during burning.
Are you under the delusion the climate disaster is confined solely to energy production?
Also the laws of thermodynamics say that pulling all of that carbon out the air would be not only inefficient to the extreme and take centuries, it would also use far more energy than we currently produce ON THE PLANET.
I have no idea where you got 50 years from, but that's a joke. we couldn't build the shit you would need to do it in 50 years.
The laws of thermodynamics say no such thing. Plants use solar energy to extract carbon from the atmosphere daily.
We could farm fast growing crops and bury them to sequester the carbon, but using nuclear energy is going to be cheaper and require less land.
E = mc2
People really don't understand the massive amount of low carbon energy we have at our disposal with nuclear fission.
An unwillingness to use it just means we don't want to solve climate change and would rather have our little "oh noes, world is ending" panic.
China seems to be the only big economy that understands the reality and they will probably solve climate change for the rest of the planet by 2050.
How long does it take to build a reactor: 15-25 yrs each Main component of construction: Concrete, a major contributor to CO2 emissions How many would we need to produce the energy required to run carbon capture infrastructure: ~1500
For your alternative, it has more merits but the main drawbacks come down to where do you grow it, and how does that effect the environment around it. Growing a shitton of kelp is going to create problems with nutrition in that area. I like this method most but the scalability is still a major problem. The amount you would need to grow is STAGGERING. I don't know how we could do that and still have any coastal sea left open. Maybe massive floating barges in the open ocean.
It only takes that much time and cost in the West, because we killed nuclear with regulations.
Look how many reactors China is building.
I refuse to take anyone seriously that spouts this level of ignorance on technological matters.
You were claiming that a single country could undo all of this. I really don't know how you take yourself seriously. Look at any data. There hasn't been a pause in acceleration let alone a slowdown.
Because profits are to be made and no country is willing to take this on and foot the bill.
It's just a "tragedy of the Commons" situation.
Technologically and financially, it is easily within our capability to solve.
Its even cheaper than your estimates...
We just need to plant trees, and get our forests to grow again. Like, the earth has these fabulous organisms that clean greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere... And they are self-replicating!
And due to climate change, they are sadly burning like crazy.