• houseofleft@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Just to back up what your saying MIT have a nice explainer on carbon lifetimes[0].

    I don’t know if I feel as doomed as you though. There is a lot of technology to reduce carbon (renewables etc). And moreover, a lot of the carbon use today is completely unecessary consumerism.

    We’ve had 30 years of political inertia since Regan/Thatcher/etc so political change seems impossible to a lot of folks. Historically that’s just not the case. Before then, voter rights, civil rights, women’s rights all made huge political changes. If there’s any silver lining to the horror show of US politics at the moment, it should be that there is at least proof that massive structural change is possible in today’s political climate, and I genuinely believe that can be harnessed for good.

    I don’t think there’s any guarantees, but it’s still a lot too early to give up.

    [0] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere

    • fake_meows@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      There is a lot of technology to reduce carbon (renewables etc).

      You’re only talking about reducing the rate of increases. That’s irrelevant. Carbon would still be growing, not shrinking.

      As I stated, we need a way to decrease the existing carbon, which is a different, much larger problem, with no technology and nothing waiting in the wings. We have no ideas. Renewable or rebuildable power systems could be useful, but how does that power suck fossil carbon out of the biosphere, what’s the tech for that?

      • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        31 minutes ago

        how does that power suck fossil carbon out of the biosphere, what’s the tech for that?

        Does it have to be tech? Ocean plankton, peat bogs, forests, etc all do a great job of removing and storing carbon. They’re being destroyed currently, but we could choose to bolster them instead.

      • millie@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        The closest thing I’ve heard of is sulfur dioxide injection, which could apparently reduce greenhouse effects. However, if we implemented this and ever stopped doing it before decreasing the current levels of carbon, it could result in more rapid heating, which would be more damaging to wildlife due to the greater speed with which survivors would have to migrate.

        • fake_meows@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          That’s geoengineering to reduce the strength of sunlight to get heat down. It has to be repeated indefinitely, forever, or heat increases again.

          Also, it doesn’t reverse what’s causing climate change by removing carbon.