• jol@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Any fix on symptoms will only give the worst offenders more excuses to increase emissions. See carbon capture and carbon credits. It’s already being used as an excuse to not do anything real about the problem.

  • Delta15N@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Because it’s a bandaid on an arterial bleed of a problem and has its own host of issues (anoxia once the algae blooms die off being one of the big ones, aside from the cost of actually doing it on a global scale). Lots of discussion around whether it makes sense to do, but really for the effort to do it, and the unintended effects on the environment, it would probably be better and cheaper to just reduce GHG emissions.

      • Paragone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The actual choice, is

        • we either act proactively, or
        • our remnant ( if any ) regret, retroactively.

        This isn’t consensus for a simulation/model, this is actual historical fact:

        They’re ignoring methane, and they’re stating, explicitly, that at our current atmospheric CO2, the planet historically stabilized at between +5C & +6C.

        When one factors-in the added methane, 1.3ppm to 1.4ppm, at 82.5x factor, we’re actually between +8C & +9C planet-equilibrium-temperature for our current atmosphere.

        -4C put 2 miles thick of ice on North America: planet-degrees are BIG.

        Humankind simply is either too devoutly-ignorant or too stupid to live, from the looks of it.

        After it has happened, oh, then humanity’ll admit it ought do something…

        Utterly retarded, and the obliteration-of-billions-of-lives it is setting-up the enforcing of, is needless.