New documents show how a deceptive PR strategy pioneered in 1950s California first exposed the risk of climate change and then helped the industry deny it.
New documents show how a deceptive PR strategy pioneered in 1950s California first exposed the risk of climate change and then helped the industry deny it.
In a way my initial reaction reading the title was very similar: we know this stuff already. Then I thought of taking a look at the article and realised there were several stuff mentioned I was not aware about, apart from this new memo I mean. I also liked the pictures from the archives and the links to the documents as reference to hat they say, so I thought it was totally worth sharing after all.
Apart from that for me revisiting a topics through the lens of another author/person sometimes helps me find actual answers or perhaps reframe the question: What can we do?
Or perhaps look at it differently, phrased “what could we have done then”, and see if anything is still relevant. Not to fix it, I think we’re far too along now, but we can still take measures to reduce the total impact in the far future and adapt to what’s coming. My first suggestion sounds simplistic but it’s the hardest thing to do for some people - reduce consumption of everything possible. Had we slammed the brakes back then on consumption and growth, it would be a different world and would have bought us more time (I think we still were in trouble even with an optimistic reaction).
If we actually cut emissions to zero, we can expect to see the Impact within a lifetime to be substantially limited. It’s not that far off if we actually succeed.
I assume you mean net zero, which isn’t zero emissions but countering existing and hopefully lower emissions with some tech to remove its output. Actual zero emissions is…well, that’s cessation of human activity. And there would still be emissions from the feedbacks already started with either.
Let’s be clear, human emissions even at our current rate are just a percentage of total emissions, and act as a pushing force to drive things further. Taking that away is better, but it doesn’t stop the direction we’ve set things in motion. If we could somehow pull carbon back down to under 300ppm or even less…that would start to brake things, at least reduce the heat input finally, but so much other damage has been done that I think even that kind of miracle wouldn’t be enough.
I get your stance, we have to do what we can now to minimize the future results, and I agree. I just disagree on where even the best actions from humans (which are very idealistic) would get us.
The main problem with carbon removal is that it’s expensive, and removing it doesn’t produce a product you can sell. So in practice, doing something like what you describe within a generation requires a system of taxation which absorbs 40% or so of total economic output, and uses it to sequester carbon. That seems, to put it mildly, politically very difficult.
You’re correct on the marketability. You either sell it to be released later defeating the purpose, or by hopefully sequestering it to help with extraction of fossil fuel, which again…maybe not worth it. To actually remove massive amounts of CO2 and permanently take it out of the cycle is akin to burying money.
I see the main problem not as the cost, but the scalability. Our best efforts so far don’t even amount to a fraction of a percent. There have been recent developments that could help some, so that would be a percentage of our annual emissions. A long way to go when the preferable solution is to remove emission amounts not only being emitted, but past years’ amounts too.