Zany ideas to slow polar melting are gathering momentum(economist.com)
economist.com
Zany ideas to slow polar melting are gathering momentum
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/06/06/zany-ideas-to-slow-polar-melting-are-gathering-momentum
73 comments
> when we should be actively striving for a sustainable society
Sorry to sound frustrated, but this is an argument for 60 years ago. It's irrelevant today. The die is cast. There is no situation when we will not even need technology to fix the problem for us, except the one where we just give up and say "fuck it". No models show an insignificant rise in global temperature, even if all emissions stopped today, and there is no foreseeable scenario in which all emissions stop even in the next 50 years. We need to get with the program. It sucks, we don't want it to be this way, but we are basically down to science and engineering solutions rather than regulatory or ground-level change.
Not saying we don't also need systemic change, just that is is not sufficient at this point.
Sorry to sound frustrated, but this is an argument for 60 years ago. It's irrelevant today. The die is cast. There is no situation when we will not even need technology to fix the problem for us, except the one where we just give up and say "fuck it". No models show an insignificant rise in global temperature, even if all emissions stopped today, and there is no foreseeable scenario in which all emissions stop even in the next 50 years. We need to get with the program. It sucks, we don't want it to be this way, but we are basically down to science and engineering solutions rather than regulatory or ground-level change.
Not saying we don't also need systemic change, just that is is not sufficient at this point.
I certainly do not want to go back in time to a pre-industrial society. I do want to go _forward_ into a truly post industrial society though, and not simply hide the dirty industries into the poorer parts of the world.
But, the technology must be met with an ideological shift away from technological dependence. We need to create more environmental technology, and less representational technology - interfaces and screens.
The software revolution is yet to happen, that is what I aim for.
But, the technology must be met with an ideological shift away from technological dependence. We need to create more environmental technology, and less representational technology - interfaces and screens.
The software revolution is yet to happen, that is what I aim for.
What was magical about COVID was the ability to see a blue sky in China and India, people still had food, shelter and fornicated. COVID showed you that we could have a cleaner environment and have the basics provided.
COVID also gave us clear knowledge that it is easy to define socially necessary labor. Most jobs out here in the USA are downright bullshit jobs, and our 'labor' only contributes further to the current ecocide.
Abolishing landfills? What exactly would this do?
There's an ungodly amount of free space on earth. Drive outside a major city sometime.
Preventing people from dumping on unused land in order to reduce emissions seems ... ridiculous?
There's an ungodly amount of free space on earth. Drive outside a major city sometime.
Preventing people from dumping on unused land in order to reduce emissions seems ... ridiculous?
Today, our industries abuse our planet's resources for the short term benefit of all of us. Abolishing landfills is a confirmation that we are past such a myopic technological level. We no longer need them.
> Drive outside a major city sometime.
Growing up in the suburbs, I understand this quite well. But this land is not ours just because it is there and unused. We need to return a majority of the earth back to the ecology. Monkeys are falling out of trees in Mexico, 50% of bugs and birds are dead due to the ecocide, I could go on.
Just referencing 'unused land' as if it is ours to use by default is a gross misunderstanding and human-centric approach to ecology. There is more than us here.
> Drive outside a major city sometime.
Growing up in the suburbs, I understand this quite well. But this land is not ours just because it is there and unused. We need to return a majority of the earth back to the ecology. Monkeys are falling out of trees in Mexico, 50% of bugs and birds are dead due to the ecocide, I could go on.
Just referencing 'unused land' as if it is ours to use by default is a gross misunderstanding and human-centric approach to ecology. There is more than us here.
I am unabashedly human-centric, and only people suffering from affluenza think otherwise.
Read "The Improving State of the World" by Indur Goklany.
Read "The Improving State of the World" by Indur Goklany.
Talk about affluenza, telling someone 'go read theory'. Put your arguments in your own words.
That book doesn't even rise to the level of "theory." Just drivel from a notorious climate denier.
The things you are describing are not going to make a material difference. Ground all plane travel, permanently. Ground all car and truck transportation that is not electric, permanently. No electricity generation except by solar, wind, wave, nuclear, etc., permanently. Kill all cows and have a giant BBQ and then no more methane producing livestock are allowed, permanently.
Solutions that are not "acceptable enough" are not solutions, they are notions.
We can still "have it all" -- flight, meat, etc., if the right incentives exist; this too is more notion than solution but is the only possible path.
We can make "sustainable" fuel, and cattle can be fed seaweed and restricted to existing range lands (i.e., don't destroy more forests).
A key problem is that this issue and associated solutions have been artfully politicized by their incumbent stakeholders so a significant portion of the population will resist these efforts purely out of spite.
We can still "have it all" -- flight, meat, etc., if the right incentives exist; this too is more notion than solution but is the only possible path.
We can make "sustainable" fuel, and cattle can be fed seaweed and restricted to existing range lands (i.e., don't destroy more forests).
A key problem is that this issue and associated solutions have been artfully politicized by their incumbent stakeholders so a significant portion of the population will resist these efforts purely out of spite.
> "Kill all cows and have a giant BBQ and then no more methane producing livestock are allowed, permanently"
A dangerous idea, there are fewer cattle than humans on Earth, even if we add sheep, goats and pigs, there are still more humans.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/livestock-counts
A dangerous idea, there are fewer cattle than humans on Earth, even if we add sheep, goats and pigs, there are still more humans.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/livestock-counts
So, your plan is to get rid of both artificial fertilizers (use methane for Haber-Bosch), and natural fertilizers (livestock manure)?
The methane feedstocks for Haber-Bosch probably don't come from cow stomach though, right?
Presumably they'd come fracking shale. But if you want to hook up a few million hoses to cowbutts, I'm not stopping you.
His plan is to kill the human race. The rest is just window dressing.
It seems like that to me too. I keep hoping that it's just some cognition defect, that they're trying to be reasonable, that there's this one little piece of logic they stumble over... but the more I listen to them, the more convinced I become that they really do just want all of us to be extinct.
Yeah the environmental movement from the 70s has evolved into something like a death cult in its modern equivalent. Technology can no longer save us, but is in and of itself the problem along with industrialized civilization. Doubly ironic given how that movement killed nuclear power, and if we had actually built as many reactors as Nixon wanted we would've actually accomplished some of these now-arguably unachievable goals on climate metrics.
I'm being a little glib in that comment, but the sentiment is I think true and I wish they'd be honest about it. If they stated plainly that "we think in order to achieve what we believe are the required reductions in xyz, we have to decrease the human population by X% so less is consumed" I would actually respect them more. Instead the de-growth mentality is rhetorized up to look nice, but again it's just window dressing.
I'm being a little glib in that comment, but the sentiment is I think true and I wish they'd be honest about it. If they stated plainly that "we think in order to achieve what we believe are the required reductions in xyz, we have to decrease the human population by X% so less is consumed" I would actually respect them more. Instead the de-growth mentality is rhetorized up to look nice, but again it's just window dressing.
It's expensive but we could absolutely produce green methane with renewable energy.
And there are natural fertilizer paths that aren't cattle.
You've constructed a strawman.
And there are natural fertilizer paths that aren't cattle.
You've constructed a strawman.
> It's expensive but we could absolutely produce green methane with renewable energy.
You don't even understand. The methane's mostly for the hydrogen, used to make ammonia or some other nitrogen compound. There are other ways of making this, Birkeland Eyde, for instance, but there like one third as efficient, at best. This means people starve. You might make the case that we could efficiently use livestock manure as a substitute (it's the green solution), but not if you're going to turn this into Planet Vegan. Given the necessity of animal manure, it's difficult to think that "get rid of all the livestock" stems from anything other than bizarre vegan tendencies.
If you absolutely have to get rid of the livestock, so be it, but then you really do need the fossil fuels. Pick, it's one or the other as far as I can tell.
> And there are natural fertilizer paths that aren't cattle.
Nope. You've got livestock (hogs, poultry, etc), or you've got fossil-fuel-based Haber-Bosch. I'm not even really aware of any science fiction concepts "other paths".
You don't even understand. The methane's mostly for the hydrogen, used to make ammonia or some other nitrogen compound. There are other ways of making this, Birkeland Eyde, for instance, but there like one third as efficient, at best. This means people starve. You might make the case that we could efficiently use livestock manure as a substitute (it's the green solution), but not if you're going to turn this into Planet Vegan. Given the necessity of animal manure, it's difficult to think that "get rid of all the livestock" stems from anything other than bizarre vegan tendencies.
If you absolutely have to get rid of the livestock, so be it, but then you really do need the fossil fuels. Pick, it's one or the other as far as I can tell.
> And there are natural fertilizer paths that aren't cattle.
Nope. You've got livestock (hogs, poultry, etc), or you've got fossil-fuel-based Haber-Bosch. I'm not even really aware of any science fiction concepts "other paths".
Green ammonia is already being commercially deployed by folks like Talus. Yes, we'd have to invest hard in renewables and nuclear, but it's absolutely achievable. Ammonia production is whole integer percent of global energy use, that's not an impossible number to supply with hydrogen.
Additionally, pulse crop rotation is increasingly being used to provide some free nitrogen to the soil.
Bioreactors with Azotobacter vinelandii are showing promise in providing nitrogen fixing in a reactor.
And like, industrial composting produces fertilizers with plenty of nitrogen. Soybeans, in particular, need no nitrogen inputs and produce plenty of both useful food and nitrogen containing plant matter.
Our wastewater also contains tons of nitrogen, both from biosolids and from agricultural runoff. These are difficult to get at safely, admittedly, but not impossible.
If you pause to think about it, all that manure needs to come from feedstock plus other inputs (water, etc). If you diverted that same feedstock into producing fertilizer (in the case of soybeans) or not producing at all (in the case of dent corn) you'd have plenty of material and a reduced demand. Manure doesn't just magically come from no inputs.
Additionally, pulse crop rotation is increasingly being used to provide some free nitrogen to the soil.
Bioreactors with Azotobacter vinelandii are showing promise in providing nitrogen fixing in a reactor.
And like, industrial composting produces fertilizers with plenty of nitrogen. Soybeans, in particular, need no nitrogen inputs and produce plenty of both useful food and nitrogen containing plant matter.
Our wastewater also contains tons of nitrogen, both from biosolids and from agricultural runoff. These are difficult to get at safely, admittedly, but not impossible.
If you pause to think about it, all that manure needs to come from feedstock plus other inputs (water, etc). If you diverted that same feedstock into producing fertilizer (in the case of soybeans) or not producing at all (in the case of dent corn) you'd have plenty of material and a reduced demand. Manure doesn't just magically come from no inputs.
Nitrogen fixing bacteria and biofertiliser certainly exist https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7464700/
100y ago the farter in my area where riding horse trucks to the city with vegetable to sell and came back with human and horses excrements.
Nope. You've got livestock (hogs, poultry, etc), or you've got fossil-fuel-based Haber-Bosch. I'm not even really aware of any science fiction concepts "other paths".
The Haber-Bosch process needs hydrogen, as you said in your first paragraph. Hydrogen can be made directly from water by electrolysis with renewable or nuclear electricity. This was already done on an industrial scale in the 20th century, with hydroelectric power used to produce hydrogen for ammonia:
"1921–2021: A Century of Renewable Ammonia Synthesis"
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4079/3/2/11
That's how to use the Haber-Bosch process without fossil fuels or livestock.
The Haber-Bosch process needs hydrogen, as you said in your first paragraph. Hydrogen can be made directly from water by electrolysis with renewable or nuclear electricity. This was already done on an industrial scale in the 20th century, with hydroelectric power used to produce hydrogen for ammonia:
"1921–2021: A Century of Renewable Ammonia Synthesis"
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4079/3/2/11
That's how to use the Haber-Bosch process without fossil fuels or livestock.
> The Haber-Bosch process needs hydrogen, as you said in your first paragraph. Hydrogen can be made directly from water by electrolysis
Nice. You've just made one of the most energy-intensive necessary industrial processes even more energy intensive. Even while you're doing your best to demolish whatever baseload power we might still have.
> This was already done on an industrial scale in the 20th century, with hydroelectric power used to produce hydrogen for ammonia:
Got any spare hydroelectric? Any more rivers you want to dam up? Maybe you can decommission a few more nuke plants and replace them with brown coal.
Nice. You've just made one of the most energy-intensive necessary industrial processes even more energy intensive. Even while you're doing your best to demolish whatever baseload power we might still have.
> This was already done on an industrial scale in the 20th century, with hydroelectric power used to produce hydrogen for ammonia:
Got any spare hydroelectric? Any more rivers you want to dam up? Maybe you can decommission a few more nuke plants and replace them with brown coal.
Sounds like solutions straight out of https://play.half.earth/
AKA kill half the worlds population
I have a head sci-fi story of us creating a super powerful AI that solves almost all of humanity's and the Earths problems by curating a selection of 250,000 ideal humans, and then killing everyone else. A quarter million good people living in a near perfect world propped up by AI robots with essentially infinite resources.
I'm almost positive I wouldn't make the cut, the top .003% has gotta be a higher bar than me to clear, hah. But still fun to think about.
I'm almost positive I wouldn't make the cut, the top .003% has gotta be a higher bar than me to clear, hah. But still fun to think about.
In the early 20th century, arguments against eugenics included pointing out that natural selection works through environmental pressures. Selecting for traits we value currently may well paint us in a corner should the environmental pressures change in some way.
I guess that might hint at a fly in the ointment to drive the plot...
I guess that might hint at a fly in the ointment to drive the plot...
Maybe the plot twist should be that the AI makes a big deal out of the selection process, then instead just kills those 250,000 people.
> what if we are wrong?
Then we're wrong, and it doesn't matter. If we're wrong, what's the point in questioning it?
> We are sitting on our hands and praying for a deus ex machina to save us from ecological collapse
Well... no, we're not. Millions of people are working every day on the technology needed to solve these issues either directly (i.e., better pollution control on factories) or indirectly (i.e,. developing cleaner energy)
This isn't to say we all should just sit back and wait for the scientists to come up with an answer - we do very much need to fix many other issues as well, as you point out - but please let's not pretend that a) WE'RE DOOMED! or b) that we're just waiting for a "miracle" or some kind of "breakthrough" to save us
Then we're wrong, and it doesn't matter. If we're wrong, what's the point in questioning it?
> We are sitting on our hands and praying for a deus ex machina to save us from ecological collapse
Well... no, we're not. Millions of people are working every day on the technology needed to solve these issues either directly (i.e., better pollution control on factories) or indirectly (i.e,. developing cleaner energy)
This isn't to say we all should just sit back and wait for the scientists to come up with an answer - we do very much need to fix many other issues as well, as you point out - but please let's not pretend that a) WE'RE DOOMED! or b) that we're just waiting for a "miracle" or some kind of "breakthrough" to save us
We definitely won't be able to fix it fast enough. And the answer to "what happens?" is simply: Darwin.
There is already historical precedent for what happens when a species makes the planet uninhabitable for nearly everything: after the evolution of photosynthesis, the atmosphere filled up with extremely toxic waste product known as oxygen gas, driving most species to extinction. The ecology recovered, with new species, millions of years later.
Rich people won't survive in their bunkers, either.
There is already historical precedent for what happens when a species makes the planet uninhabitable for nearly everything: after the evolution of photosynthesis, the atmosphere filled up with extremely toxic waste product known as oxygen gas, driving most species to extinction. The ecology recovered, with new species, millions of years later.
Rich people won't survive in their bunkers, either.
I reject your argument entirely. Your nihilistic thinking is what continues the crisis. Reject the void, choose productivity, and work to make the world better.
You can if you want, but the rest of the world is still going to continue trying to drive you extinct anyway, so you'd rather have a plan for that, than not.
Putting particulate mitigation gear on all existing coal plants that aren’t so equipped would be a good start. No tech dev required for that.
There's a strategy in politics of opting for the impossible futuristic solution that's "right around the corner" instead of doing boring (and sometimes unpopular) things today. It gives the illusion of progress without having to actually make the hard decisions. See also: Hyperloop vs. regular high speed rail.
It also allows the government to "encourage entrepreneurialism" or "stimulate the economy" by subsidizing private research (which, if successful, we would then turn around and sell to the globe—as if this would somehow be more attractive than ignoring the west and building another coal plant at lowest cost possible)
I've said this again and again—the only rational step is to directly subsidize poorer countries to not build coal plants and, in fact, replace them with more expensive but less destructive generation (inlcluding, say, battery farms, nuclear power, hydro, etc, that can properly address off-hour usage).
I've said this again and again—the only rational step is to directly subsidize poorer countries to not build coal plants and, in fact, replace them with more expensive but less destructive generation (inlcluding, say, battery farms, nuclear power, hydro, etc, that can properly address off-hour usage).
How are they not then incentivized to build even more coal plants than they need to get free investment?
They could, but presumably further subsidizes would stop. This only works by continually and voluntarily applying flattening pressure to a power dynamic (which some might even call justice), and only to some extent. This is, however, a problem far easier to manage and deal with than the collectively suicidal tendencies we're stuck with now.
And of course the devil would be in the details, and it'd probably look messy and ugly. But I just cannot conceive of it being messier and uglier than the future we're staring down the barrel of.
I think the biggest barrier to this is not any rational problem that might be individually addressed but America's embarrassment at likely losing hegemony in the event we collectively manage to survive this catastrophe without mass death and the four horsemen. Really, refusing to stop global warming is a path towards retaining hegemony by taking advantage of future chaos as we have of past chaos. Everyone knows we have massive farmlands and water sources, enough to support our own people probably many many times over, and others do not have this luxury.
And of course the devil would be in the details, and it'd probably look messy and ugly. But I just cannot conceive of it being messier and uglier than the future we're staring down the barrel of.
I think the biggest barrier to this is not any rational problem that might be individually addressed but America's embarrassment at likely losing hegemony in the event we collectively manage to survive this catastrophe without mass death and the four horsemen. Really, refusing to stop global warming is a path towards retaining hegemony by taking advantage of future chaos as we have of past chaos. Everyone knows we have massive farmlands and water sources, enough to support our own people probably many many times over, and others do not have this luxury.
The economic forces that caused global coal consumption to be flat is what’s preventing people from building more coal plants.
Excluding China global coal consumption would be down significantly, and they are quickly bringing alternatives online.
Excluding China global coal consumption would be down significantly, and they are quickly bringing alternatives online.
China is not the biggest issue, though they may be today—most of the coal plants coming online are in South Asia and Southeast Asia. Whereas China has a pretty healthy "green industry" sector domestically and similar incentives to the west to decarbonize, most countries currently building do not. Furthermore the coal provider in the region, Australia, makes a lot of money with this export. It's not going to be easy to control all these variables while also forcing countries to not develop a strong energy base (which correlates with, roughly, the size of your economy) and also not providing any subsidies. Meaning, it won't work, though you will certainly piss people off if you try.
Southeast Asia is relatively poor for PV due to all the rain, but that just means it’s a few years behind the curve. That same hockey stick growth has kicked off in all the countries Australia is exporting to.
Exported coal meanwhile is fighting heavy transportation costs which only go up as demand starts to fall off. So, while they had very slow growth over the last decade that’s balanced on an economic knife edge. Most industry experts are just trying to decide how quickly things drop off not if they will.
Exported coal meanwhile is fighting heavy transportation costs which only go up as demand starts to fall off. So, while they had very slow growth over the last decade that’s balanced on an economic knife edge. Most industry experts are just trying to decide how quickly things drop off not if they will.
coal is getting phased out pretty fast in most countries
I’ve seen some pretty vivid demos of how soot affects melt rate of snow. Anything dark fucks up the albedo.
And the thing with soot is that it’s the sort of thing where if you could fix it, the benefits would be nearly immediate. All you need is a couple clean layers of snow on top of the pack and most of the absorption stops.
And the thing with soot is that it’s the sort of thing where if you could fix it, the benefits would be nearly immediate. All you need is a couple clean layers of snow on top of the pack and most of the absorption stops.
Is polar ice very sooty?
It's not very sooty in Antarctica because its further from human activity but Arctic ice can get pretty dirty after volcanic eruptions or wildfires.
Greenland gets it especially bad from all the Canadian fires that are nearly annual now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
Greenland gets it especially bad from all the Canadian fires that are nearly annual now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
I suspect it gets more and more so as the ice melts and particles trapped in the ice don't.
Interesting argument, so you think the non-white particles of each layer might accumulate while layers of ice melt
I could also see them washing off with the meltwater, but I'd bet some stick around.
I'm no expert, so I'd take my ideas with a grain of salt.
I'm no expert, so I'd take my ideas with a grain of salt.
There are pictures where people walked out on snowpack and scooped out a handful of snow, then they come back months later and there's an ice stalactite as tall as a man left behind.
When the fire nation attacks it is.
All of these ideas involve depositing the heat elsewhere on the planet, or even keeping in the same spot. That's not going to be great.
There's only one solution: stop the greenhouse effect at the origin.
There's only one solution: stop the greenhouse effect at the origin.
Reflecting heat back to space should also work. E.g. cover large areas with white (IR-reflective) layer. Or with clouds.
It's pretty involved, and harder to pull off exactly as planned, but should work in a pinch, e.g. to stop a catastrophic runaway heating trend.
It's pretty involved, and harder to pull off exactly as planned, but should work in a pinch, e.g. to stop a catastrophic runaway heating trend.
> Reflecting heat back to space should also work. E.g. cover large areas with white (IR-reflective) layer. Or with clouds.
Clouds are keeping heat in though.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/44250/clouds-and-gl...
Clouds are keeping heat in though.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/44250/clouds-and-gl...
Depends on the material of the cloud. Fire up some volcanoes!
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/do-volcanoes-affect-weather
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/do-volcanoes-affect-weather
These idea kill two birds with one stone: they stop global warming, and solve the threat to fossil fuel companies from cheap solar energy.
Oh fantastic!
Any way we could maybe just solve the second problem to get it done faster? Those poor fossil fuels companies are really hurting-- honestly that should be our priority. We can't have oil execs going hungry.
/s
Any way we could maybe just solve the second problem to get it done faster? Those poor fossil fuels companies are really hurting-- honestly that should be our priority. We can't have oil execs going hungry.
/s
First: ice is a great reflector. Second: you'd have to cover large areas, with unknown consequences.
The Earth radiates an enormous amount of heat away into space(in fact the same amount that it receives from the sun), so all we really have to figure out (for a quick fix) is how to tip the balance negative enough to offset the additional warming from greenhouse gases.
Long term we need to stop the greenhouse effect, but things are getting dire way faster than even the most delusional optimist could forecast reversing emissions.
Long term we need to stop the greenhouse effect, but things are getting dire way faster than even the most delusional optimist could forecast reversing emissions.
So we should bring back CFCs and destroy the ozone layer?
Well no, in the same way we shouldn't bring back asbestos to fireproof buildings. There are other techniques, none without downsides, but not doing anything has a pretty enormous downside.
That's socialism! /s
That much sea level rise?
From New York: https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/12.php
From Stockholm: https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/78.php
Simple: New York is sinking slowly. Stockhold is rising. Especially since the effects are pretty much linear 1880 to present.
From New York: https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/12.php
From Stockholm: https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/78.php
Simple: New York is sinking slowly. Stockhold is rising. Especially since the effects are pretty much linear 1880 to present.
We are going to do absolutely nothing
Makes for lots of articles and airtime, that's all
Soon only multi-millionaires will be able to afford property insurance in large parts of Florida and California and eventually Nevada is going to have some amazing oceanview property.
That's how it works, we do nothing.
Makes for lots of articles and airtime, that's all
Soon only multi-millionaires will be able to afford property insurance in large parts of Florida and California and eventually Nevada is going to have some amazing oceanview property.
That's how it works, we do nothing.
I agree with you even though this is cynical. This is the likely response to climate change. It seems that our societal inertia is too great. People will not change unless climate change forces them to adapt.
Even then, climate change is this can become a problem for the poors.
The rich can just get better air conditioning and air processing.
About the only blue black to any of the rich/ elite is war famine and general economic disruption from The four horsemen of the Apocalypse
The rich can just get better air conditioning and air processing.
About the only blue black to any of the rich/ elite is war famine and general economic disruption from The four horsemen of the Apocalypse
You’re not thinking long enough term. We’re doing this for the benefit of our (far) future generations who won’t have any fossil fuels left to fall into this trap when restarting civilization.
Cynical and ignorant is just the worst combination.
We are doing a lot - all of California runs on solar for a few hours every day and no coal plants are being built.
Nihilism is pathetic.
We are doing a lot - all of California runs on solar for a few hours every day and no coal plants are being built.
Nihilism is pathetic.
We haven't even stopped for decades now something as simple and well agreed toxic as leaded fuel.
It is sprayed around every airport in the United States and the world, there is always "reasons".
Lead molecular-mimics calcium in the body, there is no "undo" it is deadly and physically and mentally damaging.
Now go read about bunker fuel use in cruise ship and cargo ships around the world and how insanely toxic that is to wildlife.
Now go read about fracking burnoff for months just into the air, thousands of wells.
We have zero political will to changes things.
I am very old now and have seen climate change talk for nearly 50 years. Nothing is ever done.
Climate Change is past the turning point, billions will suffer the consequences, just not the wealthy.
It is sprayed around every airport in the United States and the world, there is always "reasons".
Lead molecular-mimics calcium in the body, there is no "undo" it is deadly and physically and mentally damaging.
Now go read about bunker fuel use in cruise ship and cargo ships around the world and how insanely toxic that is to wildlife.
Now go read about fracking burnoff for months just into the air, thousands of wells.
We have zero political will to changes things.
I am very old now and have seen climate change talk for nearly 50 years. Nothing is ever done.
Climate Change is past the turning point, billions will suffer the consequences, just not the wealthy.
So, in addition to being hopeful for technological innovation, we must advocate for widespread systemic change, so that we would not even need technology to fix the problem for us. This includes destroying the inherently unsustainable supply chain and in its place constructing a supply cycle. We need to abolish landfills, and require all (at least industrially) produced goods to have a clear recycling strategy. Sustainability is a problem that needs to be solved socially as well as technologically.