this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
136 points (97.9% liked)

World News

38994 readers
2475 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We aren't locked in for the next twenty years, only the next ten years.

We could build a thousand RBMK like nuclear reactors in a decade and then suck out 50 ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere in another decade.

Would cost $500B to $1T or so.

We just don't really think global warming is serious enough to warrant an action plan at the scale of the Manhattan project, Apollo program or Messmer plan.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a speculative technology at the moment.

Like, yes, we "can" do it, if you ignore all the materials and energy needed to perform that process. And that's just in theory, in practice its bound to be far more difficult.

No matter how you put it, it's easier to just... Not release the pollution in the first place. If it's too difficult to stop polluting, it will certainly be too difficult to remove that pollution that has been already released. Entropy and all that.

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is something we should only really start thinking about when the world already runs nearly entirely cleanly.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

You ignore political realities.

An Apollo scale program to extract carbon emissions from the atmosphere could be financed by the OECD countries without heavily impacting their economies.

Building a thousand nuclear plants with reduced safety requirements in a remote place would not run into NIMBY problems.

Stopping emissions globally would require Chinese political will, since they emit more than all of the OECD combined.