The 2 ( 3 !!!) ways to cool the planet

[Muse]

Stop burning fossil fuel is the main answer. We just need to switch everything to green energy along with nuclear as base load. Ideally thorium reactors. It can be done it's just nobody wants to do it because it has initial cost. And the main reason is that once it is done, there is no continuous source of costly fuel going into the system, thus no money to be made.

All the money that goes towards fossil fuel subsidies should be going towards large scale energy storage R&D instead, such as molten salt and flow batteries. Removing fossil fuel subsidies would probably destroy the entire enconomy in a single night though. But it has to happen. It will not be easy at first, but it needs to happen.

That strategy is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is causing the burgeoning greenhouse effect. However, it does not address reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere, the point made by Alex Carlin in the linked "Misconceptions..." video above in this thread, and also in this:

Recommended!

 

[cytg111]

Stop burning fossil fuel is the main answer. We just need to switch everything to green energy along with nuclear as base load. Ideally thorium reactors. It can be done it's just nobody wants to do it because it has initial cost. And the main reason is that once it is done, there is no continuous source of costly fuel going into the system, thus no money to be made.

All the money that goes towards fossil fuel subsidies should be going towards large scale energy storage R&D instead, such as molten salt and flow batteries. Removing fossil fuel subsidies would probably destroy the entire enconomy in a single night though. But it has to happen. It will not be easy at first, but it needs to happen.

Yes.
Should should should.
Wont happen unless there is legislation to support it.
The people at large overwhelmingly supports this legislation.
Why is the people in power blocking it then?
With offset in the US wtf is the GQP doing?
What is Manchin doing?
Sinema has cut ties with the very progressive groups THAT GOT HER ELECTED… She is not taking the presidents calls nor is she engaging in negotiations with other democrats. She is however talking to McMitch and conservative power donors.

Where in that little slice of utter shit, little slice of the giant cesspool of corrupt politics, do you find hope that “just switch to green” is ever gonna come close to having even a single percentage chance of happening.
The experiment is over. Human kind is too corruptable at its core. We’ll choke on our own shit and rightly so. Too many @ in the world.

 

[Brainonska511]

I bet my cumulative carbon footprint is a lot smaller than yours.

Bully for you.

The NYTimes article by David Keith linked in the OP makes mention of the moral hazard of strategies that do not specifically basically involve decreasing CO2 emissions, e.g. this:

Of course, the exact same thing can be said of Ocean Pasture Restoration.

My issue is that we haven't even come close to exhausting carbon emission reduction strategies.

How do you propose to deal with the underlying issue? You are think me buying another car is gonna fix anything?

Why is it going to be "buying another car"? This is not an issue that can be fixed overnight, but there are a number of ways to begin to fix the issue of climate change - many covered in other threads. In short - allow for greater density and mixed developments (so people don't need to rely on personal automobiles as much), improve mass transit networks so that people actually use them, and electrify the shit out of everything (ie, get people to install heat pumps when they need to replace their heating source instead of putting in a new gas burner).

 

[Muse]

Love all these "solutions" to cool the planet instead of dealing with the underlying issue. People will support anything to avoid even a small change in lifestyle (ie, dealing with our continued reliance on automobiles (and excessively large ones at that) for everything and our wasteful practices of using energy).

I bet my cumulative carbon footprint is a lot smaller than yours.

The NYTimes article by David Keith linked in the OP makes mention of the moral hazard of strategies that do not specifically basically involve decreasing CO2 emissions, e.g. this:

Research is minimal because geoengineering has influential opponents. The strongest opposition to geoengineering research stems from fear that the technology will be exploited by the powerful to maintain the status quo. Why cut emissions if we can seed the atmosphere with sulfur and keep the planet cool? This is geoengineering’s moral hazard.

Of course, the exact same thing can be said of Ocean Pasture Restoration.

Bully for you.

My issue is that we haven't even come close to exhausting carbon emission reduction strategies.

Why is it going to be "buying another car"? This is not an issue that can be fixed overnight, but there are a number of ways to begin to fix the issue of climate change - many covered in other threads. In short - allow for greater density and mixed developments (so people don't need to rely on personal automobiles as much), improve mass transit networks so that people actually use them, and electrify the shit out of everything (ie, get people to install heat pumps when they need to replace their heating source instead of putting in a new gas burner).

Well, the point of the latter stages of this thread is that while reducing emissions in the way it's being planned involves spending trillions of dollars, for a few million invested in OPR we can reduce carbon, quite possibly enough where we can survive. As well, the benefits of OPR are virtually immediate, while those of emissions reduction take a long time, plus they don't reduce the CO2 already emitted (see the "Misconceptions" article by Alex Carlin linked above. You didn't respond to those things at all in your post I quote above.

Bully for me? I was making a very valid point. As the OP of the thread, presenting alternative strategies to simply reducing emissions was pointed out to likely be a smoke screen for not being carbon responsible. I felt obligated to point out that this was not my motivation at all, that in fact I have a tiny carbon footprint. I can back it up, too. I wasn't bragging, I was defending myself.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

#4 --- Nuclear Winter.

 

[rommelrommel]

#4 --- Nuclear Winter.

Nuclear winter is a debunked myth.

 

[Muse]

#4 --- Nuclear Winter.

No, #4 is your ring finger. WTH are you talking about?

Oh, the way to cool the planet. Are you just a jackass fool?

Nuclear winter is a debunked myth.

Yeah, I figure the only way you'll create a massive planet wide persistent winter is a giant asteroid/meteor impact (it happened 65,000,000 years ago). Conceivably an incredibly violent volcanic eruption, although I don't know if that's possible.

 

[cytg111]

Bully for you.


My issue is that we haven't even come close to exhausting carbon emission reduction strategies.

Why is it going to be "buying another car"? This is not an issue that can be fixed overnight, but there are a number of ways to begin to fix the issue of climate change - many covered in other threads. In short - allow for greater density and mixed developments (so people don't need to rely on personal automobiles as much), improve mass transit networks so that people actually use them, and electrify the shit out of everything (ie, get people to install heat pumps when they need to replace their heating source instead of putting in a new gas burner).

My point is that to get there you need policy… and policy isnt happening. So. Game Over.

 

[Muse]

My point is that to get there you need policy… and policy isnt happening. So. Game Over.

So... if that is true, this thread is very very on point.