Your suggestion would go against energy freedom
Discussion
It's a problem without good answers. There's no denying that the atmospheric chemistry has changed, I think it's clear this has negative effects, and the best way to restore things is to remove CO2.
How that happens is less clear, and it seems like the establishment answer is to fix it using large scale fusion at everyone else's expense.
Personally I'd like to see better distributed solutions. Maybe AI will finally allow people to figure out cold fusion and we'll get off this CO2 crazy train.
Co2 is proxy for coal, oil.
Coal & oil power have led to significant reduce in human loss of life from climate.
I celebrate humans living more safely thanks to coal & oil.
Very happy for future tech to materialize. Today fusion is not ready.
To be clear coal & oil are required for humans to adapt to a naturally dangerous environment, and for humans to thrive.
Right. My question still stands: what if we just made a *lot* of additional energy. I think you're hung up on the accounting. Maybe the answer is that rich countries give others energy in exchange for not burning coal?
I agree on a lot more energy.
The answer to get a lot more energy quickly is to remove roadblocks for coal in South Africa, Europe, the US.
Burning coal is massive win for the human race.
Not burning coal hurts humans.
China is winning the energy race, and it's by using solar panels. Why would you increase coal when it's more expensive than better alternatives? Great for the coal mine owners no doubt
Yes, China is winning in energy as China is the leader in coal.
Why coal? It’s a cheap, tested, reliable technology.
Let’s not conflate subsidies, and central planner diktat for coal shutdown in the US.
Ah, I was confused by some narrow graphs. You're right, it's lots of fossil sources in China.
The problem I see is that fossil fuels are going to turn this rock into Venus, and this plays into the hands of those who will fix it, either by quid pro quo, or by selectively fixing it and letting the places that don't pay up wither and die.
You can have water, or you can make CO2, but the only way you're going to do both is by making the rich far richer. Energy independence today, maybe, but serfdom tomorrow.
The only way to truly be dependent is to make new, non fossil, distributed energy sources
> venus
No. Earth ocean have been 18 degrees warmer. During this time biodensity reached a peak.
Remember, colder weather is 10x times more dangerous for humans than hot weather.
> you can have water, or you can have co2
?? I dont understand. We can have both.
Fossil fuels are requires for modern civilization. Not using fossil fuels today leads to mass human casualties.
The planet will absolutely still exist if temperatures rise 18º. But both terrestrial farming an aquaculture will collapse, and humans would only be able to survive in the polar regions.
Doesn't seem ok to me.
> ?? I dont understand. We can have both.
Heat dries the land and disrupts precipitation. CO2 increases heat. Therefore, continuing to drive up CO2 will reduce the availability of non-seawater.
I want independence, but I'm also an engineer who recognizes that nothing comes for free. The only way out of this problem is by converting atoms into smaller atoms and a lot of energy