macdoc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 7:35 am
So what's
your solution ?
The same as the UNs. Not to wait for the free market to solve the problem based on estimations of short-term profitability, but to embark on programs of rapid and radical transformation towards Sustainability for long-term benefit through coordinated government action.
macdoc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 7:35 am
You diss tech improvements but every little bit helps...after all, carbon is forever ( almost )
But I don't diss tech.
I have stated my views on this many, many times - I also want to see our descendants enjoying the post-scarcity eco-balanced techtopias of Star Trek etc. The challenge of your complaint about my views on tech has been met over and over again - but still your repeat it. Why?
Again, I'll repeat that we need to give ourselves the breathing space to develop and implement any and all solutions at the scales necessary - including tech. This requires stable and ordered social and political environments, which require examining and transforming the essentially 19th century economic paradigms that have pushed us over the cliff edge. The question now is how hard are we going to land? A viable biosphere that exists within its boundaries is simply a necessary prerequisite for the tech you champion and I desire. So in the absence of future tech solutions let's throw everything we have to hand at the problem now.
What I am extremely wary of are 'just so, just round the corner' stories about how future tech will be capable of addressing all the issues and meeting all our needs - so let's just carry on with business as usual and deal with the climate later when the tech finally arrives. I'm also highly sceptical of stories suggesting that global heating is somehow normal or natural or to be expected, as evidenced by the Holocene peak - which seems to be your current hobby horse.
As for the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere: yep, it's going to be a problem. But rather than waiting for the magic of CCS etc to arrive the quickest, most cost efficient way to address CO2 levels is to massively reduce emissions while significantly ramping up programs which sequester it in biomass. We could start doing that today. In fact most of the world has already committed to doing just that - but it's not only not being put into practice, it's being actively resisted by both mass emitters and by governments for short-term economic and political gains that serve only a tiny handful of specific interests. Methane also has to be addressed, as it has a global warming potential orders of magnitude greater than CO2 over the short-term term.
There is no dichotomy between tech, social and economic transformation, and ecological reform - unless, that is, one is banking on only one of those over the others.