The problem is not the general economics, the problem is the vested interests. Most upsides are qualitatively important and improve ordinary life but the profit is diffuse. Most abatement cost is huge incumbents like oil and coal and car industry and tax income. Their costs are being resisted and they outspend everyone else.
This is a big part of the problem, but there is some hope!
Shareholders of the big oil and gas companies have started to recognize the long-term threat of climate change. There were 87[0] shareholder proposals last year that asked firms to adopt emission reduction targets, disclose lobbying expenses, or take other action that would result in lower emissions.
Most of these failed, largely because the big institutional investors voted against them.
Shameless plug: I'm trying to solve this problem by creating a governance-first index fund [1].
On the contrary, most changes proposed reduce the quality of life, reduce choices, and require rationing and rationed distribution of some sort. It is consistently pointed out that the first world quality of life is a problem and a growing population (which is almost entirely the product of people living longer, considering first-world birth rates are abysmal) is a problem. And it is rarely acknowledged that developing nations contribute greatly to pollution and curbing that would almost certainly handicap their growth (and likely result in various forms of protest, violence, and war).
To simply assign resistance to how humanity uses and consumes energy to oil and coal and car industry and tax income is absurd. General economics is the only surefire way to get the changes we are told are necessary entrenched in society and our way of life. And that means it's technology, not government control and regulation, that is the solution that should be pursued.
The problem is that people say they care but they don't want to bare the cost. Politicians aren't stupid, they know this and choose not to do anything about it
> The survey results also suggest that the amount that people are willing to pay monthly varies. Fifty-seven percent are willing to pay at least $1 per month. The share declines with the monthly cost: 23 percent would pay at least $40 monthly, and 16 percent would pay at least $100 each month. However, the fact that 43 percent are unwilling to pay anything underscores the polarization about climate change. Party identification and acceptance of climate change are the main correlates of whether people are willing to pay, with Democrats being consistently more inclined to pay a fee.
There would be cost to ordinary people in developed countries as well. The rapid change needed will probably reduce living standards for a generation with several percentages.
Overall there may be net positive effects for all generations, never in the history of the humanity have masses sacrificed for the whole of the humanity.
We are still locked into unsustainable growth. Developed nations crave more people to stabilize their economies. Completely crazy...
Growth should just be a byproduct of increased productivity and that would allow for population increases. But our current resources just aren't enough, especially for people in first world nations.
Shouldn't democratic governments, i.e. of the people, have a vested interest which outweighs the others?
Unilaterally installing public infrastructure for renewable energy would remove all of the other concerns - forcing the 'vested interests' above to get in line.
The costs have to be high enough to change people's behaviors, and will probably fall on the people who are currently consuming the fossil fuels.
Financial games can do all sorts of things as we work out who is going to be formally treated as responsible for the write-down of lots of assets. However there is no escaping the physical costs of climate abatement; where things that could be done easily with fossil fuels get a little bit harder to achieve.
There are entrenched interests that don't like climate change, but if the alternatives are even in the same ballpark from a financial perspective there would be a stampede of bankers investing for the reduced political risks.
The problem is that people routinely underestimate the scale of vested interest. Bill McKibben famously quantified the problem as the amount of actual capital (as in, can be used as collateral) in the ground for some companies - trillions of dollars worth. But the problem actually goes far beyond this.
The real vested interest is Washington, DC - what is being confronted here is not a few oil companies and their lobbying power; that could easily be overcome, there is a ton of public interest and pressure in fighting climate change. The real barrier is that Washington's imperial power is tied to fossil fuels.
Starting as early as the 1920s there was the recognition that US oil supplies were dwindling (they peaked in 1969 and have been falling ever since), and that the bulk of remaining oil was in the Middle East. This remains the case, although Venezuela is an important new source in the era of not-so-cheap oil. Since that moment, Washington has used control over the Middle East not as a way to get oil, but as a way to exercise imperial control over world affairs.
This is why our foreign policy includes a close, bizarre, and to most Americans anathema, alliance with the repressive, dictatorial, feudal monarchy in Saudi Arabia; one of Obama's signal achievements was selling this regime $115 billion in weaponry. All of this effort, along with the effort of the Iraq War, the Afghanistan war, and the 70-year long campaign to control Iran, was organized to ensure the continuation of American power by maintaining dominance over the global oil supply.
None of this power is possible without this concentration of oil resources. If the world, instead, moves to a decentralized system based on cheap, accessible technologies, the result would be an instant loss of control for Washington. All of the military power arrayed to dominate the Middle East would become irrelevant. This is intolerable.
It is THIS vested interest that we must overcome to fight climate change. Few activists appreciate this; little of our rhetoric around climate change is organized around the war machine. It continues to be along the lines of, "This is just good sense, why can't we have a technology transition, screw the oil companies?"
Without confronting the war machine, without aiming at the real organized power that stands behind our use of fossil fuels, we're unlikely to win.
There is also vested interest at the nation state level. No nation wants to be the only nation to do something serious about climate change. If they were, they would take all the downside, and get none of the benefit.
Some countries are already seeing this. The UK is leading on some emissions control measures, and it's already contributed to bankruptcy of large chunks of it's steel industry.
If we simply stop eating meat, it would be better for us (less cancers due to red meat and pesticides), for the environment (much less pollution, resources consumed, deforestation, CO2 and methane emissions - more biodiversity) and for the animals... so in the end it is obviously way cheaper and better but we always find excuses not to do it.
This viewpoint is expressed often but there are many counter arguments.
Nutrition is not a solved equation. We simply do not know how exactly various foods affect our health, the extent that human genetics and microbiome affect “proper” nutrition for a person, what all the essential nutrients are, what the immunoresponse to various foods are, and any number of unknown unknowns about diet. Any claims to the contrary are irresponsible at best.
You mention biodiversity but seem to be glossing over the role of ruminants in the ecological system, and the severe lack of biodiversity which can be the consequence of large scale crop production.
These and other reasons lead me to be concerned that this viewpoint is to some degree tainted by ideological blind spots.
Yes, the expansion of agricultural land is almost always bad. Unless its expansion into desert, and isn't depleting water (which is almost never the case).
But, sheep, cattle and especially pigs provide useful products in the farming cycle, essential if you want to cut out oil based fertilisers.
Thats not to mention that most of the country side of Europe looks the way it does because if farming sheep or cattle.
Pasture has its own biodiversity. Simply stopping all animal consumption would leave us more dependent on fertilisers in the short to medium term. It would also cause rapid local environmental changes, that would have interesting side effects.
I like meat, eat good quality meat 3-4 a week and enjoy it. However I see a bigger problem - insane amounts of food thrown away. Secondary problems imho is good packaging. If I buy 2 bags of food at local LIDL, I have 1 bag of plastic waste at the end. Nobody wants to solve this, zero profit here. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/aug/20/f...
An average cow produces 70 and 120 kg of methane a year, with 1.3-1.5 billion cows worldwide that's 91,000,000 metric tons of methane. That's 2.73 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent. Cows are the worst, if we exterminated every cow on earth it would only be a drop in the annual bucket given that we created 37.1 gigatonnes of just CO2 last year.
Even if you factor in the fertilizer, fuel, electricity used for those cattle and double the number, it still wouldn't come close to putting us carbon negative.
The United States gets roughly 30% of its power from coal, China roughly 70%.
Commercial aviation last year was responsible for at LEAST 0.55 gigatonnes of CO2 last year and in a decade the fuel use is up 30.5%. That's also a low figure for the CO2, it could be as much as 13% higher as there are various types of aviation fuel, it also does not include military figures. By the time you factor in all of electricity and fuel use supporting aviation by non-aircraft sources, commercial aviation is likely as bad as the cows of the world.
Last year in the United States 142.86 billion gallons of gasoline was sold. If it was all consumed that is 1.3 gigatonnes. That doesn't include diesel or kerosene, and that's just the United States... keep in mind China is adding so many new drivers to the road annually that they have a lottery just to decide who gets to sit for a license. As of last year China alone has 369 million registered drivers. If each of them averages 7.45 gallons of gasoline a week they're using as much as the United States.
More and more people I know have become partly vegetarian and it seems that the meat replacements are also becoming more popular. But I can't say much about the scale of things.
This is all of this, but not THE single pressing climate issue, food is the one issue where most people from most economies have already cought up, besides some excessive outliers, there is little to catch up in consumption worldwide and it's still a low percentage on climate impact. The big consumer driven issues by climate impact are all other consumption housing and transportation. If we want to allow the rest of the world to catch up to our standard of living, food choices is not the one area where radical change is needed to make this sustainable.
Take a road trip to the central valley and take a look at what's being farmed. Almonds. Cotton for mattress stuffing (too shit a grade for anything else). Lettuce. All very high water use crops that don't give you hardly any nutrition save for the almond.
There are dozens of crops that we can and absolutely should dispense with. The problem with agriculture is farmers don't farm what uses the least resources and brings about the most nutrients per land area, they farm what returns the most. We also subsidize a lot of these crops.
You thought climate skeptics had too many "we don't know the full story..." type arguments? Trying convincing people to give up meat, as you're experience now.
"Other people give up their SUVs" is easy sell to people who don't drive SUVs.
Statements like this just prove that climate change is intellectual Puritanism adapted to the 21st century- we're doomed unless we all live lives of ascetic contemplation the way Emerson or Cotton Mather would have advocated.
I'm not a vegetarian myself, however I only eat meat products one per week. I can tell you that there's plenty of alternatives that taste good. To name a few Quorn[1] and Beyond Meat[2] and from what I read Impossible Food[3] as well.
So with the help of tech, we'll find less and less excuses not to switch, at least partially, to a plant based diet.
I don't need an "excuse" to continue eating meat. I like it, I eat measured amounts in a health way, and don't believe in this "veganism is healthier" nonsense. I'm going to continue eating it unless some one gives me a darn good reason not to.
There's not going to be anything cheap about fighting climate change. We need to start removing 35-40 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere immediately if we want to retard, and begin to reverse, what we've been adding the past several decades. To do that, we're going to have to cease using fossil fuels entirely. China gets 70%~ of their power from just coal and is building hundreds of new coal plants, the United States gets about 60% from fossil fuels (about half of which is coal). China is adding millions of new drivers to the road annually, they have so many new drivers that there is a lottery system to 'win' a spot to test for your license.
Then we have the problem of 1.3-1.5 billion cows. An average cow produces 70 and 120 kg of methane a year. That's 91,000,000 metric tons of methane. Methane is roughly 30x more potent at trapping heat. So conservatively that is 2.73 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent which doesn't include the fuels used to transport them and their feed, the fertilizer manufacturing to fertilize the fields that grow the grain they eat, the cost of refrigerating/freezing their meat...
Over-fishing and acidification is killing off large seaweed and kelp 'forests' in coastal waters, those 'forests' handle a good deal of carbon sequestration.
---
Let's just look at a hypothetical. Say we outright banned ALL air travel:
Something like 95 billion gallons of aviation fuel was used last year, that has gone up every year without fail for a decade - it was only 66 billion in 2009. Depending on the type of fuel you're looking at 0.55+ gigatonnes there last year.
A tree, highly dependent upon species, can absorb as much as 48 pounds of CO2 per year. That means you need at least 36.3 million trees.
Healthy forest has 40 to 60 trees per acre. That means at least 946,031 square miles of forest, just to offset last year's commercial air travel.
There's nothing easy about fighting climate change. :(
According to that pdf we can offset all human emissions for $250 billion per year by mining/crushing/spreading olivine rocks.
I know planting trees has been in the news lately but if we want to tackle climate change and especially ocean acidification we should accelerate the same natural process that brought the earth back into equilibrium after mass extinction events occurred. In the past it wasn't trees that did it, it was weathering of exposed limestone/olivine rocks that sucked up excess carbon.
"Get out of your SUV and turn off your air conditioning" is an easy solution to people who don't drive SUVs and live in SV.
Tell them to stop satisfying their taste buds? Tell them that much of the developing world will have to suffer? Does not compute. Can't we just make the rich pay for it somehow?
Environment is now an emotional, political, and identity issue, not a rational one.
Sometimes these comments make me think there are nuclear shills being paid to write overly pro nuclear comments. I agree we need way more nuclear, however its costly and very slow to bring online, so it clearly won't decarbonize our economies in the 5 to 10 year time span. Anyone who thinks it's the only solution is just ignorant of the energy industry.
Like seriously, parent commenter, tell me how new build nuclear is doing in the USA. How about South Carolina's massive debacle? You think that is the only feasible path forward?
The article also doesn't mention solar, wind, electric cars or any other mechanism for fighting climate change. It's about the benefits, not the mechanism.
I'm not highly educated on this subject but you seem to be (as evidenced by your strong claim). Do you have evidence or resources for which I could education myself on why nuclear is the only feasible solution to any position regarding global warming (including that global warming doesn't exist)?
It's really hard to build nuclear reactors and train operators fast enough to prevent catastrophe. Renewables are much easier to build and provide immediate benefits. It doesn't take ten years to put up some wind turbines.
I think that even the idea of climate change turns many people off. It's likely not a binary choice, but altruism and egoism play a role in people's opinions about big issues. Whether it's imagination or experience, the altruists believe in something in addition to a sense of self that overrides repugnance or disgust to situations which lack an obvious means of individual control or guaranteed end results.
Action on climate change is not about a reasonable discuss. I mean we can save the future of the earth for lets say worst case 20% of our productivity and it is not like the money will be just gone, it will just go to other people.
And that is the point, the people that are benefitting from the current system wants to do so as long as possible and are powerful enough that governments listens mostly to them.
I think the all the proposals inflight and their associated debates are warranted.
I've read that the oceans end up absorbing majority of the CO2 emitted, if that's the case, I haven't seen anything (to my knowledge) that goes towards accelerating this in a sustained way for the marine ecosystem.
The oceans are far larger and I suspect will have less issues with rolling out methods of coping with CO2 i.e won't disrupt jobs or or ways of life.
Does it make sense to attack the problem that way? It has the potential to scale much more quickly. Is there a company attacking this sorts of issues like SolarCity?
[+] [-] ggm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emckay|6 years ago|reply
Shareholders of the big oil and gas companies have started to recognize the long-term threat of climate change. There were 87[0] shareholder proposals last year that asked firms to adopt emission reduction targets, disclose lobbying expenses, or take other action that would result in lower emissions.
Most of these failed, largely because the big institutional investors voted against them.
Shameless plug: I'm trying to solve this problem by creating a governance-first index fund [1].
[0] https://voting.greengovernance.org [1] https://greengovernance.org
[+] [-] trentnix|6 years ago|reply
To simply assign resistance to how humanity uses and consumes energy to oil and coal and car industry and tax income is absurd. General economics is the only surefire way to get the changes we are told are necessary entrenched in society and our way of life. And that means it's technology, not government control and regulation, that is the solution that should be pursued.
Carrots might work. Sticks won't.
[+] [-] bko|6 years ago|reply
> The survey results also suggest that the amount that people are willing to pay monthly varies. Fifty-seven percent are willing to pay at least $1 per month. The share declines with the monthly cost: 23 percent would pay at least $40 monthly, and 16 percent would pay at least $100 each month. However, the fact that 43 percent are unwilling to pay anything underscores the polarization about climate change. Party identification and acceptance of climate change are the main correlates of whether people are willing to pay, with Democrats being consistently more inclined to pay a fee.
http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Documents/EPIC_press_release....
[+] [-] nabla9|6 years ago|reply
Overall there may be net positive effects for all generations, never in the history of the humanity have masses sacrificed for the whole of the humanity.
[+] [-] raxxorrax|6 years ago|reply
Growth should just be a byproduct of increased productivity and that would allow for population increases. But our current resources just aren't enough, especially for people in first world nations.
[+] [-] learnstats2|6 years ago|reply
Unilaterally installing public infrastructure for renewable energy would remove all of the other concerns - forcing the 'vested interests' above to get in line.
Effective governments are already doing this.
[+] [-] roenxi|6 years ago|reply
The costs have to be high enough to change people's behaviors, and will probably fall on the people who are currently consuming the fossil fuels.
Financial games can do all sorts of things as we work out who is going to be formally treated as responsible for the write-down of lots of assets. However there is no escaping the physical costs of climate abatement; where things that could be done easily with fossil fuels get a little bit harder to achieve.
There are entrenched interests that don't like climate change, but if the alternatives are even in the same ballpark from a financial perspective there would be a stampede of bankers investing for the reduced political risks.
[+] [-] astazangasta|6 years ago|reply
The real vested interest is Washington, DC - what is being confronted here is not a few oil companies and their lobbying power; that could easily be overcome, there is a ton of public interest and pressure in fighting climate change. The real barrier is that Washington's imperial power is tied to fossil fuels.
Starting as early as the 1920s there was the recognition that US oil supplies were dwindling (they peaked in 1969 and have been falling ever since), and that the bulk of remaining oil was in the Middle East. This remains the case, although Venezuela is an important new source in the era of not-so-cheap oil. Since that moment, Washington has used control over the Middle East not as a way to get oil, but as a way to exercise imperial control over world affairs.
This is why our foreign policy includes a close, bizarre, and to most Americans anathema, alliance with the repressive, dictatorial, feudal monarchy in Saudi Arabia; one of Obama's signal achievements was selling this regime $115 billion in weaponry. All of this effort, along with the effort of the Iraq War, the Afghanistan war, and the 70-year long campaign to control Iran, was organized to ensure the continuation of American power by maintaining dominance over the global oil supply.
None of this power is possible without this concentration of oil resources. If the world, instead, moves to a decentralized system based on cheap, accessible technologies, the result would be an instant loss of control for Washington. All of the military power arrayed to dominate the Middle East would become irrelevant. This is intolerable.
It is THIS vested interest that we must overcome to fight climate change. Few activists appreciate this; little of our rhetoric around climate change is organized around the war machine. It continues to be along the lines of, "This is just good sense, why can't we have a technology transition, screw the oil companies?"
Without confronting the war machine, without aiming at the real organized power that stands behind our use of fossil fuels, we're unlikely to win.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] londons_explore|6 years ago|reply
There is also vested interest at the nation state level. No nation wants to be the only nation to do something serious about climate change. If they were, they would take all the downside, and get none of the benefit.
Some countries are already seeing this. The UK is leading on some emissions control measures, and it's already contributed to bankruptcy of large chunks of it's steel industry.
[+] [-] greggeter|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] asterix_pano|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whiddershins|6 years ago|reply
Nutrition is not a solved equation. We simply do not know how exactly various foods affect our health, the extent that human genetics and microbiome affect “proper” nutrition for a person, what all the essential nutrients are, what the immunoresponse to various foods are, and any number of unknown unknowns about diet. Any claims to the contrary are irresponsible at best.
You mention biodiversity but seem to be glossing over the role of ruminants in the ecological system, and the severe lack of biodiversity which can be the consequence of large scale crop production.
These and other reasons lead me to be concerned that this viewpoint is to some degree tainted by ideological blind spots.
[+] [-] KaiserPro|6 years ago|reply
Yes, the expansion of agricultural land is almost always bad. Unless its expansion into desert, and isn't depleting water (which is almost never the case).
But, sheep, cattle and especially pigs provide useful products in the farming cycle, essential if you want to cut out oil based fertilisers.
Thats not to mention that most of the country side of Europe looks the way it does because if farming sheep or cattle.
Pasture has its own biodiversity. Simply stopping all animal consumption would leave us more dependent on fertilisers in the short to medium term. It would also cause rapid local environmental changes, that would have interesting side effects.
[+] [-] lnsru|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanmercer|6 years ago|reply
Even if you factor in the fertilizer, fuel, electricity used for those cattle and double the number, it still wouldn't come close to putting us carbon negative.
The United States gets roughly 30% of its power from coal, China roughly 70%.
Commercial aviation last year was responsible for at LEAST 0.55 gigatonnes of CO2 last year and in a decade the fuel use is up 30.5%. That's also a low figure for the CO2, it could be as much as 13% higher as there are various types of aviation fuel, it also does not include military figures. By the time you factor in all of electricity and fuel use supporting aviation by non-aircraft sources, commercial aviation is likely as bad as the cows of the world.
Last year in the United States 142.86 billion gallons of gasoline was sold. If it was all consumed that is 1.3 gigatonnes. That doesn't include diesel or kerosene, and that's just the United States... keep in mind China is adding so many new drivers to the road annually that they have a lottery just to decide who gets to sit for a license. As of last year China alone has 369 million registered drivers. If each of them averages 7.45 gallons of gasoline a week they're using as much as the United States.
[+] [-] Kaiyou|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jelly1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mxfh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdff|6 years ago|reply
There are dozens of crops that we can and absolutely should dispense with. The problem with agriculture is farmers don't farm what uses the least resources and brings about the most nutrients per land area, they farm what returns the most. We also subsidize a lot of these crops.
[+] [-] Wowfunhappy|6 years ago|reply
This is the first I’ve heard of this, how strong is the link?
[+] [-] chrisdfrey|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avip|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justnotworthit|6 years ago|reply
"Other people give up their SUVs" is easy sell to people who don't drive SUVs.
[+] [-] panzagl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zorbash|6 years ago|reply
So with the help of tech, we'll find less and less excuses not to switch, at least partially, to a plant based diet.
[1]: https://www.quorn.co.uk/ [2]: https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/ [3]: https://impossiblefoods.com/food/
[+] [-] Bantros|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bin0|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hannob|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inflatableDodo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanmercer|6 years ago|reply
Then we have the problem of 1.3-1.5 billion cows. An average cow produces 70 and 120 kg of methane a year. That's 91,000,000 metric tons of methane. Methane is roughly 30x more potent at trapping heat. So conservatively that is 2.73 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent which doesn't include the fuels used to transport them and their feed, the fertilizer manufacturing to fertilize the fields that grow the grain they eat, the cost of refrigerating/freezing their meat...
Over-fishing and acidification is killing off large seaweed and kelp 'forests' in coastal waters, those 'forests' handle a good deal of carbon sequestration.
---
Let's just look at a hypothetical. Say we outright banned ALL air travel:
Something like 95 billion gallons of aviation fuel was used last year, that has gone up every year without fail for a decade - it was only 66 billion in 2009. Depending on the type of fuel you're looking at 0.55+ gigatonnes there last year.
A tree, highly dependent upon species, can absorb as much as 48 pounds of CO2 per year. That means you need at least 36.3 million trees.
Healthy forest has 40 to 60 trees per acre. That means at least 946,031 square miles of forest, just to offset last year's commercial air travel.
There's nothing easy about fighting climate change. :(
[+] [-] halfjoking|6 years ago|reply
According to that pdf we can offset all human emissions for $250 billion per year by mining/crushing/spreading olivine rocks.
I know planting trees has been in the news lately but if we want to tackle climate change and especially ocean acidification we should accelerate the same natural process that brought the earth back into equilibrium after mass extinction events occurred. In the past it wasn't trees that did it, it was weathering of exposed limestone/olivine rocks that sucked up excess carbon.
[+] [-] justnotworthit|6 years ago|reply
Tell them to stop satisfying their taste buds? Tell them that much of the developing world will have to suffer? Does not compute. Can't we just make the rich pay for it somehow?
Environment is now an emotional, political, and identity issue, not a rational one.
[+] [-] shanxS|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunkenvicar|6 years ago|reply
The article can be safely ignored - nuclear is the only feasible solution regardless of your position on global warming.
[+] [-] Dumblydorr|6 years ago|reply
Like seriously, parent commenter, tell me how new build nuclear is doing in the USA. How about South Carolina's massive debacle? You think that is the only feasible path forward?
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SolaceQuantum|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baq|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianN|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] man2525|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panzagl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmonsen|6 years ago|reply
And that is the point, the people that are benefitting from the current system wants to do so as long as possible and are powerful enough that governments listens mostly to them.
Also it is a coordination problem Moloch style: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
[+] [-] workingpatrick|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] midwestcode|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marsRoverDev|6 years ago|reply
I mean, apart from the whole not dying in a mass extinction event within our lifetimes...
[+] [-] filereaper|6 years ago|reply
I've read that the oceans end up absorbing majority of the CO2 emitted, if that's the case, I haven't seen anything (to my knowledge) that goes towards accelerating this in a sustained way for the marine ecosystem.
The oceans are far larger and I suspect will have less issues with rolling out methods of coping with CO2 i.e won't disrupt jobs or or ways of life.
Does it make sense to attack the problem that way? It has the potential to scale much more quickly. Is there a company attacking this sorts of issues like SolarCity?
[+] [-] Proven|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] blargmaster33|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]