Oh no. What have you done?!
Oh no. What have you done?!
I really do wish the fear mongering coming out of Cherynoble and 3 mile island and then more recently the Japanese plant hadnt dissuaded so many. It really is an awesome tool but people always come back at me with these incidents when I suggest it on a public forumCarbon capture becoming more efficent than photosynthesis seems extremely unlikely, especially if you consider that carbon capture need energy unlike trees that get their own, as well as batteries getting 10-20 times cheaper . Solar shading seems the most doable option to reduce the worst parts of global warming, combined with reduced consumption (probably from economical collapse due to the warming).
We needed to build more nuclear plants in the 90's, but Russia and oil companies propaganda ruined it. If every country had as much nuclear power as France, global warming wouldn't be even a concept.
Also, there's a direct study for Beyond Meat here (https://www.fastcompany.com/9024183...w-beyond-meats-environmental-impact-stacks-up). Looks good, but I wouldn't take it too seriously until the production process is finalized. An excerpt:How much of a difference are we talking? Could you point me in the direction of a reputable study you might be familiar with? I'd appreciate it.
Thanks
A similar alternative, but more sustainable (as in, long-lasting, not the other meaning!) would be a swarm of solar shades at L1. The technology is not too far fetched (it's just big sheets of mylar foil and some spindly wires), and SpaceX are about to get launch costs way way lower than they have previously (far lower than the $1000/lb level mentioned in the linked article. It might cost <$100bn to drop solar input by just 2% percent, which would drop temperatures back to pre-industrial levels, and give us plenty of time to fix the problem. Or ignore it.Atmospheric aerosols are the best shot right now, but unless we decarbonize as well, we'll be even more fucked if we ever stop seeding them.
Still, buying time is better than dying.
A similar alternative, but more sustainable (as in, long-lasting, not the other meaning!) would be a swarm of solar shades at L1. The technology is not too far fetched (it's just big sheets of mylar foil and some spindly wires), and SpaceX are about to get launch costs way way lower than they have previously (far lower than the $1000/lb level mentioned in the linked article. It might cost <$100bn to drop solar input by just 2% percent, which would drop temperatures back to pre-industrial levels, and give us plenty of time to fix the problem. Or ignore it.
This gross abuse of language has me triggeredNothing can save us from using FX as an abbreviation of effects.
A question I was considering the other day after the announcement of the Mars terraforming game:
Once the technology is developed, would it theoretically be easier to terraform Earth after we've fucked it all up than terraforming Mars? Or would Mars' relatively unchanging atmosphere (without human interference) make it a more desirable endeavour?