This too shall pass and once it has, we shall remember the names of those that pushed genocides, those that pushed anti science that will inevitably cause the next pandemic.
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.
Why comment when you’re just randomly going to claim that ther person you disagree with must not know the subject because they disagree with you?
Sure, don’t convert back to hydro carbons. Where are you going to store all that CO2 in a way that you know it guaranteed won’t escape?
Do you have any idea how much CO2 you’re talking about? Are you going to store it in high pressure tanks? Are you going to freeze it maybe and put it in caves? Pump the gas underground and pray it won’t sleep out?
The reason that I’m talking about converting it back to hydrocarbons is exactly that: you need to store it somewhere stable and reliable. For the incredible amounts that we have to store, there aren’t that many options beyond making hydro carbons and storing those
Perhaps read an introductory article on carbon storage, or ask ChatGPT:
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): This involves capturing CO₂ emissions from industrial sources, transporting it, and storing it underground in geological formations.
Direct Air Capture (DAC): This technology captures CO₂ directly from the air and stores it underground or uses it in industrial processes
It’s a sad state of affairs that a fellow human being is more insufferable to talk to than an AI.
Yeah, you’re right, you are insufferable and sad.
Having said that:
The amount of CO2 to store, depending on how far you want to go with removing all the CO2 humans have put in the atmosphere goes in the order of cubic kilometers. Humans have been, and continue to be busy beavers. Good luck with storing that in tanks.
Storing it in geological formations may be possible in a limited fashion but since it would be in gas form there is a litany of problems with that if you want to be absolutely sure it won’t escape.
Instead of bitching and moaning it may be more productive to just, you know, stay on subject.
Genocide is the word you’re looking for
Genocide is a form of ethnic cleansing. V
Oh I know, but one word has a much bigger social impact than the other.
Its the same difference between molested and raped. You typically see in news headers that an adult male raped a little girl, but an adult women molested a little boy. One sounds much worse than the other, yet both are the same thing
Granted but they’re not the same thing. Ethnic cleansing is more broad then genocide, and genocide TECHNICALLY doesn’t have to be ethnic cleansing (but as far as I know always has been).
IMO ethnic cleansing in general can be more insidious. If you drive people from their homes and replace them with your own settlers, that’s ethnic cleansing. But it’s complex enough that the right wing will deny that it is such.
See: Palestine and the West Bank.
And while we’re discussing the correct word, he already said and did worse, again.
Theae are going to be 4 long long years
