Hacker News Reader

Comment by garyrichardson | Hacker News Reader

Maybe the article should have been written as "using technologies we have today scaled to the max, it'll take more than 700 years to get carbon under control" ? I mean, that's how I read it, but not everyone does.

On the flip side, this just goes to show you how much of a scam forest planting based carbon credits are. I've said it before, industrial scale carbon emission takes industrial scale solutions. (planting forests is generally good, but I don't think it balances out a coal plant or any other industry buying credits).

View on HN

> "using technologies we have today[..]"

I feel this limitation is where we lose most of the public. For example I am convinced that if we bid the bullet and banned burning fossil fuels starting next January, things would suck in the short term. However, I am also convinced that the progress we'd make in alternative technologies in the next 1-2 years would be unfathomable. I think we underestimate the miracles mankind can do given strong incentives like this. Yet we are afraid to create these incentives because of our low faith in our own ability.

I agree with you on the premise but not on the motives.

People who hold the money/power don't want to lose it. Quick (big) changes are a huge risk to their positions. Hence, we get slow gradual changes instead. It really is that simple to me.

100%! Both are true

I 100% agree with this view. Its not practical to go cold turkey as people would freeze and starve.

It’s one of the reasons I’m anti-pipeline. I’m generally against anything that makes it easier to get and distribute fossil fuels. Adding friction is an alternative way to internalize the cost of fossil fuels.

What happens instead is just that people use trucks to move the oil, instead of the more efficient pipelines. That makes it somewhat more expensive, which makes the oil somewhat less useful economically, and therefore somewhat less used. On the other hand, the trucks pollute more than the pipeline would have.

Are you sure your approach is helping?

"I 100% agree with this view. Its not practical to go cold turkey as people would freeze and starve."

Not sure if I was clear that my view is the opposite of what you are saying. I believe much fewer people would "freezer and starve" than expected because we suddenly would get very, very industries about finding alternative solutions. We would get through a short period that's super super tough but quickly would end up end par or better than our current circumstances. What's more, I believe that it's much easier to go through tough times collectively than individually. This is often true in war and natural disasters and night be true if we go cold turkey, as long as we do it together.

I actually really like this... because it immediately makes me think 'we should work on better technologies.' Versus the original, which makes me think 'why are we even doing this, then.'

We have technologies today to transform CO2 in the ocean directly into calcium carbonate. It's just that this article isn't talking about those, it's talking about removal from the atmosphere

Reply on news.ycombinator.com