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.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        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.