121
Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. Is nature’s carbon sink failing?
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
121 points (97.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5143 readers
614 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sorry man, that's just naive. I don't think you have any idea how dependent we are, the scale of change required.
For example, how are we to farm? Know any plants cranking out battery powered farm equipment? Know any farmers that could afford such gear?
I'm not saying we can't do more, but we're inventing and deploying green energy solutions at an astonishing rate.
Government funding can answer all those questions if the will is there. The free market will not fix climate change without heavy intervention.
As per your example, there is nothing physically preventing a battery powered tractor or combine. A government could put out subsidies for manufacturers building these vehicles, the government could then subsidise farmers buying them, and perhaps remove existing subsidy on farmers refusing to decommission their older equipment.
The literal only things where there's not a money related solution to today is long range air travel, and some very specific industrial processes that require specific plastic polymers. Literally everything else has an alternative that can be either used immediately or built relatively quickly, if we decide to spend the money.
The energy required, despite the quantity of lithium (which wouldn't be available anyway) would just surge carbon output to later reduce it decades later. We can't capitalism our way out by making more things. Stopping making everything would actually help more, but would implode the planet's societies. Throttling energy use by AI and other expensive processes would do more, now. Pushing the use of public infrastructure, even busses, would do more now. Getting people to stop using cars would do more now. Forcing employers to require jobs that don't need a physical presence to all be work from home would do more now.
The amount of lithium batteries that would required with our current tech is just staggering. The ingredients of a lithium battery are not smiles and sunshine and giggles.