this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
2925 points (98.4% liked)

World News

39142 readers
3057 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a speculative technology at the moment.

Like, yes, we "can" do it, if you ignore all the materials and energy needed to perform that process. And that's just in theory, in practice its bound to be far more difficult.

No matter how you put it, it's easier to just... Not release the pollution in the first place. If it's too difficult to stop polluting, it will certainly be too difficult to remove that pollution that has been already released. Entropy and all that.

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is something we should only really start thinking about when the world already runs nearly entirely cleanly.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You ignore political realities.

An Apollo scale program to extract carbon emissions from the atmosphere could be financed by the OECD countries without heavily impacting their economies.

Building a thousand nuclear plants with reduced safety requirements in a remote place would not run into NIMBY problems.

Stopping emissions globally would require Chinese political will, since they emit more than all of the OECD combined.

[–] SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

China has stalled their CO2 emissions since roughly 2012; they mostly pollute so much because there's immense demand of manufactured goods in richer countries; they've been putting far more effort into transitioning to renewables than some Western countries; and they're still below emissions per capita than Canada, the US, Russia, South Korea, Netherlands, Poland, Iran, Israel, Germany and Japan.

If you want China to emit even less, support protectionist policies in Western countries and/or tariff reductions for products that may prove they've been produced with renewables.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That graph badly needs updating. They stalled between 2012 and 2016, but skyrocketed from 10 gigatons 2016 to 11 in 2021.

So no, your premise is wrong.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

[–] SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Isn't it possible to reduce CO2 on the long run by planned forestry management, if we reduce our own emissions enough?