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.

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.

The fuel becomes hot because the nuclear reaction in it is producing both light (eg: gamma rays) and fast-moving subatomic particles. These both interact with the rest of the fuel to heat it up.

In most places, at most times of day, a lot less.

Why? First, because a lot of electricity is generated using wind, water, solar, and nuclear. Those don’t have that problem (ok, nuclear wastes a lot of heat, but really, who cares). The second reason is that power plants that burn stuff tend to be a lot more efficient than internal combustion engines; the best case is combined-cycle gas turbine power plants, which turn over 60% of the energy available into electricity, as compared with a gasoline engine which turns about 20% of the energy in the gas into motion.

As others have mentioned, this doesn’t actually change much. Something near 90% of Chinese emissions are to support Chinese consumption

They do…and they appear to have just started reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as their wind and solar buildout is happening fast enough to displace fossil fuel use. They’re also the main exporter of those technologies, so a push for decarbonization will both cut their own emissions and those of the rest of the world.

It’s a real indictment of the American Republicans that they chose to fight renewables every step of the way — the US could have been in an incredibly strong leadership position had they chosen to support them instead.

The benefit mostly accrues to the people using the electricity solar and wind generate. If you’re making decisions for a society, instead of on behalf of rentiers who can donate, there are strong reasons to choose it.

If they actually worked, it would be payment to somebody who has taken an action to prevent emissions they otherwise would not have prevented. In practice, it’s 90% middlemen who claim to have paid somebody to take such an action, but no such action actually occurred, or a completely ineffective action occurred.

Not yet

Probably Putin, who vetoed any suggestion of other locations.

This one has a link to https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/08/climate-breakdown-will-hit-global-growth-by-a-third-say-central-banks

Maybe a client issue on your end?

Or are you subscribing via mastodon instead of lemmy?

We lost the election, but Biden was pretty demonstrably a lot better.

I wouldn’t say that the movement towards state action weakened under Biden; we got some great examples of it, such as the requirement for renewables in Minnesota.

Sorry, but accelerationism only gets us a lasting fascism. It doesn’t get us the kid of stable world where people can substitute wind and solar for fossil fuels

Probably six months before we see big auctions again.

This is generally not a great way to do it, since the emissions largely coming from fossil fuel burning. Fewer people doesn’t help much if we burn even more.

May? That’s exactly what he did in the past

There are a ton of things we should be doing to push Democrats. But not today — to even have a chance of any kind of activism to work, we need to elect them first.

US emissions peaked back in 2007

This leads me to believe that you’re making an appeal to ignorance.

The Democrats have actually passed major new policies, with Harris casting the tiebreaking vote for the Inflation Reduction Act:

It’s not yet enough, but they’ve made over a hundred policy changes in addition

By contrast, the Trump administration went out of their way to roll back as many environmental protections as possible.

Given that choice, it’s worth looking at how Stein can operate as a spoiler:

Scenario 1:

Harris: 1001 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 0 votes

Harris wins

Scenario 2:

Harris: 1000 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 1 vote

Tied vote, which goes to the courts and Congress, putting Trump in power

Scenario 3:

Harris: 999 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 2 votes

Trump wins outright

This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward. Republicans know this, which is why they’re the ones funding the Green Party.

It’s bad enough that the European green parties have asked her to step down.