It’s impossible at 0 emissions, isn’t it? The cycle continues for at least a few hundred years even if humanity ceased tomorrow? We’d have to do unfathomable amounts of carbon sequestration and other things even if we were at 0 emissions tomorrow? My understanding at least
I mean, is he, even in this hypothetical? If he were, that would be so valuable to society. Kinda doubt it
1 Like
1 Like
Seriously, and meaning no offense. How fucking dumb to you have to be to think that a KH presidential victory would have any sort of difference in climate change? either candidate will be pushing such a pro business policy that the world will be completely fucked when it comes to carbon emissions
1 Like
So much other shit happens concurrenrly with this kind of rise, that the shape of shorelines is relatively meaningless by comparison
Dead oceans and shit
Just lol. Just endless blind faith in obviously failed institutions right up until loaded into the train heading to the camp.
1 Like
Not quite. If we went to 0 emissions you would technically pause temperature increases. (With massive error bars)
But at a higher temperature the sea levels will continue to rise. If that makes sense.
In particular stratospheric sulfur particles can stabilize the temperature for pretty trivial costs with current technology, though they don’t help with other consequences of carbon emissions (ocean acidification, etc).
I’ve just spent the last 3 months studying this. It’s absolutely not true
The only chance of doing anything is concerted international action. We literally had Clinton signing Kyoto. Bush pulling out (and spoilering as well) then Obama personally making the Paris agreement happen.
The IRA has its flaws, but it’s miles better than what trump would do.
And like I said. This all matters. The difference between 1.9 degrees and 2.2 degrees and 2.8 degrees is the difference between our grandkids having a future and not.
3 Likes
You are right and wrong. What Trump does internationally really matters. China’s and India’s commitment to emissions reduction is dependant on cooperation with the US.
Obama made the deals. Trump wouldnt care
Two points on this one.
Firstly. This is exactly what the bad guys want you to think. There’s tons of evidence that the fossil fuel industry hypes things like carbon capture and hydrogen and small nuclear reactors deliberately to encourage delay on actual action.
Secondly. You know the whole parable where the guy is in the flood and says no to the boat and the helicopter and just prays and then drowns and then god is like. I sent you the boat and the helicopter wtf man.
Except it’s god going I gave you solar power and wind power and EVs. It doesn’t even cost that much you just have to build a lot of the shit. What are you doing?
We have the technology solutions
3 Likes
I don’t think this is true as a rule. Can you cite? I am sure there are examples of this but I do not think there is any evidence this is some widespread conspiracy.
I am working on several of these projects, and have sat in meetings with the senior management of several major oil and gas companies about them, and have never seen any evidence of this supposed conspiracy theory.
Of course, part of the reason they are spending on these is they see the ESG social pressure but they also realize these technologies will be the future of power and they are playing the long game. Someone will control this market and they all want to be that company.
I’ve never heard a single person say anything remotely like it’s a scam to trick people into delaying action. I’m not even sure what that means. Spending in these decarbonization technologies is THE action. Absent these types of new energy sources and decarbonization technologies I have no idea what you mean by “action”.
Your earlier point about how a Harris win is so much better for climate change than a Trump win is bang on for the reason you stated. The solution will be collective action. The people claiming Harris and Trump are the same on this simply have no idea what they are taking about.
I agree with you, but also note that it doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theory or a scam with devious planning if it aligns to their incentives anyway. They can, and do, sincerely want to make a lot of money selling fossil fuels in the short run and win the long game with alternatives, even if the environmental impacts of continuing to sell fossil fuels in the short run are pretty catastrophic for other people.
This is just business. They don’t have to start every meeting with a declaration that they intend to put shareholder interests ahead of the public interest. Everyone in the room knows that.
4 Likes
Here’s one. I’m just in my phone.
Carbon Capture and Storage: the solution to climate change or to the fossil fuels’ survival? Critically framing EU ́s discourses around CCS.
There’s also a lot of motivated reasoning, response to incentives, etc.
People running a conspiracy don’t think they are running a conspiracy. It’s like “well. Renewables won’t work and fossil fuels are essential for development and so we need to find real world solutions”
I mean. You think the people sitting in the room with tabaco companies doing heinous shit thought they were conspiracies?
We’ve had this conversation before, but CCS isn’t going to work for standard fossil fuel generators. Maybe some of the chemical plants on ed&ge cases, but I’m not convinced
1 Like
I’m not an expert but I’ve heard and read similar things about CCS that seems like it’s verging on a boondoggle. It may at some point be a legitimate option but some experts are definitely skeptical.
Of course that’s their interest. But so is being the market leader of the next energy source. You think they all don’t want to own the hydrogen market if they could?
Ok let’s pretend it’s a huge conspiracy.
You are lord ruler of the world. What do you do to solve climate change if CCUS, hydrogen and nuclear are all scams?
We can obviously dig up endless articles from 20 years ago about how wind and solar can’t ever succeed because it’s too expensive. That’s how technology works. It’s always too expensive in the development stages. It why we have governments.
The only serious climate solution is significantly more investment in green energy ( like hydrogen) with interim decarbonization investment (like CCUS) along side a massive build out of global zero emissions electricity sources.
The problem with this article is its states facts but draws the wrong conclusion. Let grant its premise that carbon capture is bullshit. Ok. Congrats. What’s the solution. I can cite the same article that hydrogen, nuclear, biofuel, widespread solar, wind, geothermal ect are bullshit.
I honestly have no idea what some of the climate change lobby wants?
Right now I’m working on two solar, one wind, one carbon capture, three biofuel, one nuclear, and one geothermal project and there are people (likely on this forum) who would claim it’s all just cover for oil and gas. 