Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There isn't a better, more effective solution. Maybe 25 years ago, but it's almost certainly too late now. [0] Even if we cut emissions to 0 tomorrow using magic, the ice caps would continue melting from the CO2 we've already released.

That said, it's still worth it to keep emphasizing the fact that things are going to continue getting worse for the environment. Otherwise, people will be shocked, angry and outraged and societal upheaval and violence are likely to result. Already, you see people are upset about the wildfires in California, or the influx of migrants from the global south.

It would be doubly sad (though perhaps some would call it poetic justice) if we lost our civilization as a consequence of destroying our ecosystem.

[0] https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433




> There isn't a better, more effective solution. Maybe 25 years ago, but it's almost certainly too late now. [0] Even if we cut emissions to 0 tomorrow using magic, the ice caps would continue melting from the CO2 we've already released.

Please propose an alternative solution that does not involve time travel.

Yes, Climate Change is going to have a negative impact on the world regardless of what we do today. But if we don't do anything, that impact will be even worse!


CO2 capture in the vein of www.climeworks.com might be the solution, but it would need the political will to tax the humankind. There is no way we will ever find a commercial use for the captured CO2.

In the meantime, those of us with the means to do so can buy cheap arable land (of the low yield potential, remote and so on) and plant a native forest there. If you're in the EU, the cost of doing so might be way less than you imagine, thanks to the Union heavily subsidizing forestation. My first order approximation is that fully offsetting the estimated emissions of my family would delay getting that damned flat downpayment by two or three years. Which I'm seriously considering.


This should all be done in addition to emissions reductions, though!


CO2 capture will unfortunately never be practical. Assuming we can get the cost down to $100/ton (which is very optimistic!), the cost of capturing all CO2 emitted by fossil fuels per year would roughly equal 20% of the total US GDP. Limiting emissions will always be orders of magnitudes more efficient.


Indeed. But to really stop the bleeding, we do have to go negative emissions. It's not like the answer to "we'll reach the point of no return by 2030" should be "ok, let's settle for 2035 instead".


[flagged]


> We've already driven the bus off the cliff: I'm saying we need to brace for impact

We need to do both, or that impact is going to be even more catastrophic! We're already fcked, but every additional half degree of warming makes us significantly more fcked.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: