@computerphage: Thank you for the typo correction! I am off for more coffee.
It is also insane how long humanity has ignored this issue. At least we have seemingly moved from ‘12 years left for real action? Hah!’ To ‘Oh shit this is happening and maybe we have that 11 years’
I think you mean "overstated".
That being said, it’ll definitely continue to wreak havoc with ocean acidification. But it’s important to know that it’s not necessary to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere to get rid of a huge chunk that has already been emitted.
She also details a critical acidity point (I forget the PH level but I think with current rise in acidity it is modeled to reach that point in 2100) where calcifiers cannot survive due to the acidity essentially breaking down their shells. Think oysters, barnacles, coral. Major parts of the ocean’s ecosystem that could have a ‘cataclysmic’ effect if wiped out.
Perhaps the conversation needs to center on how to factor the long view into capitalism. Because in my view it is pretty shit at that, with often short term profits favoured over long term and the effects of that being felt long term.
Right now our intervention option looks like direct intervention to make things less profitable in the near term, and then we run into the problem of democracy also favouring short-term popularity over long-term stewardship and the immediate pains it bring to voters.
Governments need to start paying into a fund, per CO2 ton produced, that pays out, per ton of CO2 removed.
Capitalism doesn't force us to continue to burn fossil fuels. We could impose massive fines or taxes against any greenhouse gas emitter, but we lack social will.
Capitalism doesn't mandate hypergrowth or working yourself to the bone.
That's a byproduct of our centralised monetary system and inflation.
lack of personal freedom and ease of abuse probably make this a terrible choice, but it would without a doubt be better for climate change than currently
The cure suggested here is worse than the disease.
And I'm not entirely sure. Is authoritarian rule worse than billions starving to death, with collapse of the ecosystem?
All the enlightenment ideas fall apart when we actually reach the limit of the earths resources, and can potentially cause our own extinction along with the rest of the animal kingdom
Most long-lived democracies appear to have optimized to mitigate the risk of the second, over the long run, but at the cost of limiting the first.
One thinks the Roman Republic had a pretty good thing going politically... but declaring a temporary dictator in times of crisis only worked until it didn't.
Still, 475 years was a pretty good run.
The carbon that has been released into the atmosphere from oil is here to stay. I am not even sure we should go looking for some energy guzzling carbon sink because we really need to give the earth time to breath and settle into the ecosystem that exists today. The earth will heal itself and balance will be restored but we can never go back to pre-industrial revolution levels of carbon.
Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.
There's a reason they're suggested in that order.
In the same time, the only thing we can do, as individuals, is to reduce the emission from our side. But it's wrong to enforce it upon others.
Yeah man, downvote me as you wish, but LOL you won't get very far.
Second, "scientifically proved or not"? Are you really questioning whether we've proven climate change is occurring?
Finally, if you've been paying attention, you'll notice that the voices telling us that climate change is an individual problem and not a policy reform/regulation problem are basically Big Oil propaganda designed to demoralise you with guilt. It's not about individual action. I would still recommend it for spiritual and philosophical reasons, but not scientific.