this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
79 points (95.4% liked)

science

14741 readers
800 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It does not make sense. Like replacing the light on your oven with an LED instead of the massive flood lights lighting up your castle. Look at the MAC diagram here to see what the low hanging fruits are and which fruits are so high up that no ladder reaches them.

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You mean we should just cut emissions and not try to remove CO2? Or am I missing something in the article?

I don't think we can do enough off that list to make enough difference. And we're already hitting positive feedback cycles so we need some way to remove CO2. I doubt either of those things will happen, but theoretically we need both now.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

You have a finite amount of resources. Your want to reduce/limit global warming add much as possible. So you need to spend the resources as effective as possible, not in applications that cost 10x as much for the same effect.