• fake_meows@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    There is a lot of technology to reduce carbon (renewables etc).

    You’re only talking about reducing the rate of increases. That’s irrelevant. Carbon would still be growing, not shrinking.

    As I stated, we need a way to decrease the existing carbon, which is a different, much larger problem, with no technology and nothing waiting in the wings. We have no ideas. Renewable or rebuildable power systems could be useful, but how does that power suck fossil carbon out of the biosphere, what’s the tech for that?

    • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      how does that power suck fossil carbon out of the biosphere, what’s the tech for that?

      Does it have to be tech? Ocean plankton, peat bogs, forests, etc all do a great job of removing and storing carbon. They’re being destroyed currently, but we could choose to bolster them instead.

    • millie@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      The closest thing I’ve heard of is sulfur dioxide injection, which could apparently reduce greenhouse effects. However, if we implemented this and ever stopped doing it before decreasing the current levels of carbon, it could result in more rapid heating, which would be more damaging to wildlife due to the greater speed with which survivors would have to migrate.

      • fake_meows@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        That’s geoengineering to reduce the strength of sunlight to get heat down. It has to be repeated indefinitely, forever, or heat increases again.

        Also, it doesn’t reverse what’s causing climate change by removing carbon.