> "What are your mitigation solutions that will demonstratively show positive results? Not PC but actual efforts."
Exploring alternative energy sources that have no carbon footprint would be a net positive step in the right direction, even if climate change isn't a "real" problem. Fission has its own problems, but fusion could pan out someday. Call me an optimist.
And we can't fight volcanoes or hurricanes or tsunamis at the moment, but does that mean we shouldn't explore possible ways to, even if our current technology seems woefully inadequate?
How does progress even happen with an attitude that we can't change things that seem impossible to change?
I still think we should pursue better sources of energy simply because we should strive to be more efficient and sustainable. And it doesn't hurt anyone to explore the possibilities of geo-engineering -- if only to better understand our world and the biosphere.
I agree global warming *could* be a huge misunderstanding along the lines of 1970s predictions of an upcoming Ice Age. However, I'm leaning towards thinking global climate change is more like ozone-depleting chemicals that irreversibly damage parts of the atmosphere.
I'm fully aware that CO2 is a "natural" molecule that can be harmless at a wide range of concentrations. Yes, we exhale it. Yes, methane is produce by other bodily functions. Those facts don't mean everything "natural" is safe or harmless under all conditions.
And I don't think you're making a "truckload of vegetables" argument, either. You have a point. Life on earth could also be endangered by tampering with things we don't understand fully -- such as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
I have never said that anyone should jump into geo-engineering blindly. But we are, in a sense, doing so by not doing anything at all (and continuing to burn fossil fuels at an increasingly greater rate). And merely *discussing* the options is potentially helpful and not a seemingly huge waste of resources.
I assume you believe climate change is a non-issue that shouldn't even be discussed? If that's the case, you must be disappointed in a lot of people/organizations/governments.
I haven't suggested the government needs to tax carbon dioxide production or provide incentives to capture greenhouse gases. If climate change isn't caused by human activity, should we just let it happen naturally? If an asteroid was headed straight for us, should we just look the other way?
Given that fusion generators that produce net energy don't exist yet -- yes, fusion is irrelevant now.
But are you saying that if fusion energy were practical at some point, it wouldn't significantly change the world economy? Hmm. The petroleum industry wouldn't disappear entirely, but we might not need to ship billions of gallons of oil anywhere -- or strip mine coal or frack anything.
And I think electric cars are already becoming quite practical, more quickly than you might expect.
The question really is... will fusion ever live up to its promise of unlimited, clean, cheap energy? If it does, it *would* be a game changer.
Obviously, if fusion turns out to be similar to fission generators, where the potential for catastrophic accidents are a concern and the total costs are comparable to coal-produced energy, then yes, it'll be no big deal.
Are you saying that we should be putting even more CO2 into the air because it seems to make make some plants grow better?
I don't think anyone is saying that the Earth itself is going to be lifeless due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. The ecosystem changes all the time in response to climate, but do we want to be the cause of the changes? (Especially when we're not sure what will happen?)
I'm not so sure about your solution to CO2. First, it's not exactly carbon neutral or negative to grow and harvest bamboo (and then dump it all down a hole)? Second, oil wells and coal mines don't exactly sound like great storage places for preventing organic material from rotting? Third, this bamboo scheme doesn't seem financially advantageous for anyone, either, so there's no economic incentive to do it.
If we can get carbon nanofibers in an economical way, we get some desirable building materials AND suck some CO2 out of the air.
Yes. These plastic balls are made from HDPE - high density polyethylene. That's the same plastic used to make 1gal milk bottles, and they don't leak toxins because they don't contain any BPA or other additives.
Techdirt has an affiliate account with Amazon... but we currently only use the links for the Techdirt Reading List. You should be able to see that reading list as a widget on the right hand column of our website. so look this way -->
I suppose we could add another widget/list for Amazon stuff beyond books... but how should we curate the products that might go into that?