this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
18 points (84.6% liked)

Hacker News

2169 readers
31 users here now

A mirror of Hacker News' best submissions.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There's no way this will ever be economical at the scale we need to fix what we've done.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Obviously there's more to it than just saying go, but honestly the economics of it should not matter whatsoever.

It could cost every penny on the planet and still be worth it, the alternative is the end.

[–] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it's less effective than simply planting more plants, then it would be pointless. It'll take a massive amount of renewable energy to have any impact. That renewable energy might be better used to help burn less fossil fuels.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Oh don't get me wrong, we should be doing all that too.

Unfortunately though, it will not be enough. As of the past year or so, all remaining models to avoid hitting a climate breaking point require carbon removal and we're nowhere close to what is required (including natural capture methods).

We need to be throwing everything at this problem starting yesterday. All possible approaches should be put into play.

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

We pretty much have no choice. Stopping to put more CO into the atmosphere wont stop climate change unless we can also remove the excess we've already put there.

[–] CeeBee@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It doesn't need to be