I can actually imagine a pretty well knit, well organized community springing up there
I haven’t been there for a while, but I imagine there already is a pretty well knit and organized community there, at least compared to most communities in America.
You might live and be too fucked up to kill yourself after.
Eh, the numbers arent good for survival
As long as you finish the Walrus reveal first…
1 Like
I’d choose to live on the Golden Gate Bridge as depicted by William Gibson in that book I can’t remember the name of.
It’s called the “Bridge Trilogy”, actually. The first one is Virtual Light.
And apparently it was the Bay Bridge anyway, not the Golden Gate. Total pop culture reference fail.
Wat? 18% of greenhouse gasses are from residential housing. Cutting that in half would dramatically reduce emissions. The effect of cutting back to one car would be hard to estimate because it wouldn’t halve the number of miles driven, but it would still be a significant reduction in emission.
1 Like
Yeah. Carbon capture is a bit of a fantasy. Even trillions of trees buys us an extra 10 years max if we are lucky.
It’s tipping points all the way down.
Carbon capture through reforestation could work. Like other environmental efforts, it’s a matter of whether or not it’s politically feasible.
A few hundred million acres required.
A lot of that does come from energy, but people use energy and smaller homes use less energy. (Building and heating and cooling)
And as far as I can tell, most of the time lowering your personal carbon footprint is advantageous and means saving money.
1 Like
re: carbon capture. I found this article interesting. The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change
Note that I have no expertise and have no idea how seriously you should really take it, but the author seems credible enough to me. Or at least not obviously full of shit 
Taxing carbon is basically all we have to do. Taxing it pretty hard to be sure (which is why the money HAS to be returned to people as UBI or it’ll never be politically feasible) but taxing it.
A lot of you have no idea what % of total emissions are done because widget A is 5% cheaper than widget B because emissions are free. The answer is that it’s a fuck ton.
What’s weird right now is that emitting carbon costs nothing. Obviously that has to change ASAP. Simultaneously capturing carbon through things like different farming methods and building with lumber instead of cement and plastics is just straight up more expensive than it should be.
This whole problem gets solved, and really pretty quickly, by shifting human incentives. We should be charging for carbon. It’s really that simple.
1 Like
This is one of those things that falls into the category of “simple, but not easy.”
1 Like
Only if you’re trying to keep the money in government hands. It’s pretty easy politically if you distribute it weekly to the population on an equal basis. You’re basically trying to pay the poorer citizens to optimize their lifestyles around not using carbon. They should come out quite a bit ahead on this, and the wealthier people can just pay for it if that’s what they want… meanwhile all the low hanging fruit should get picked nearly immediately.
It’s not nearly as easy as that. We’re seeing it right now in Canada. We have exactly what you’re describing, and the right is demonizing it with some success, using their usual mix of weaponizing the word “tax” and outright lies. And ours isn’t even close to being high enough to make a significant difference.
All you have to do is have elected leaders create and enforce laws that are opposed by one of the wealthiest, most powerful, most politically active and organized industries in the world. Easy peasy.
3 Likes