news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body.
If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include not just the twitter.com URL but also xcancle.org (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source (archive.today, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org). Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed.
Mass-tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken Markov chain bot will result in a comm ban.
Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.
Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned.
Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society.
view the rest of the comments
unfortunately the whole notion of carbon capture is basically unworkable, the amount of carbon you'd have suck out of the air to make even the slightest bit of difference is orders of magnitude more than we'd be able to
are there any methods to reduce current atmospheric CO2 concentration that are workable?
if not we're more fucked than I realized.
IMO we should be attempting it at a global industrial scale.
The two most effective actions we can take are rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels and undertaking mass reforestation which is essentially what China is already doing. That said, the reality is we're now locked into some very severe consequences down the line because we've missed our chance for a smooth transition.
Countries may well turn to geoengineering, such as releasing reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, but that itself carries enormous risks since we don't truly understand the potential side effects.
In my view, we must begin shifting our mindset. We need to move from trying to avert the crisis to learning how to cope with living in a world whose climate has become hostile. This means seriously considering strategies like large-scale indoor farming, widespread water desalination, and other adaptation measures.
Western planning mostly seems to be about preparing to kill or enslave climate refugees, while pretending that the Great God of Progress will deliver unto us a mighty technosorcery juuuust in time - so that the most profitable move is to do nothing and win.
my addon: (internal and external. oh and also all non-productive old or disabled people. oh and all gender and sexually diverse people. oh and all neurodiverse people. oh and a bunch of internal races and cultures we don't like. oh fuck it how about also 50% of the population across the board we just don't like. ohhh fuck how about instead just everyone that isn't a billionaire of a small select group of breedable pets.)
silicates withering is sort of workable, if very drastic.
the drastic part is the scale of damn problem, you have to shove 100 everests (in american units) into fields fairly rapidly, while scale of gravel production is around 1 gigaton, singular, which has to be scaled up like 100 times, good thingy though the tech for rock blowing up is easy and known, but
. i think this was like on the edge of feasibility of available silicate to be found, so it cannot be the only method in use in any case, but it is the fastest. (don't quote me on numbers though, there is also a lot of logistics hidden there, some rocks are just not usable for that purpose, cause you have to transport them too far, defeating the purpose)
A good ballpark that helps communicate the scale of this is that we'd need to spin up a new industry operating on roughly the scale of the whole fossil fuel extraction industry--coal, oil, and gas together--basically all at once. We'd need similar levels of extraction, transportation, storage, and processing. It would be the fossil fuel industry operating in reverse. It took 200 years to get the fossil fuel industry this big, and that was with the incentive of it basically being a money printer too. It isn't going to happen.
Oh we are so fucked, 84% of all coral reefs are dead 66% last year. That's 4mil species gone forever. 2 degree warming goal already impossible to keep. Methane leaking everywhere ice melts and they don't even know how bad it will really be. And if the insects that pollinate keep dying, no more food.
I'm sure Grok or whatever techbro bullshit will fix it 😬
https://industrydecarbonization.com/ is a pretty good resource on the different approaches being tested.
Atmospheric carbon sequestration is one of least efficient approaches being tested. It's appealing to capital because it allows a continuation of the idea that CO2 emissions are an externality.