Skip Navigation
Controversies of carbon dioxide removal - Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
www.nature.com Controversies of carbon dioxide removal - Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Various methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are being pursued in response to the climate crisis, but they are mostly not proven at scale. Climate experts are divided over whether CDR is a necessary requirement or a dangerous distraction from limiting emissions. In this Viewpoint, six experts off...

Various methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are being pursued in response to the climate crisis, but they are mostly not proven at scale. Climate experts are divided over whether CDR is a necessary requirement or a dangerous distraction from limiting emissions. In this Viewpoint, six experts offer their views on the CDR debate.

0
What solarpunkers think about money?
  • Money is not inheritly bad, just think of it as a tool to make accounting easier

    Is it though ? Not saying it is inherently bad, but in itself it forces a market value on everything - which is a rather limited proxy to usage value. In that sense money in itself is not neutral, not "just a tool", as it shapes how exchanges are made in a society.

  • What solarpunkers think about money?
  • We shouldn’t be so angry that we think something as broad/simple as a marketplace has no use, and should not even be attempted, in creating a sustainable society worth living in.

    It looks like you are conflating market economy and capitalism. These are two different concepts, and the first one predates the second by a few millenia.

    So in the end the question was about capitalism but you argued in favor of market economy.

  • It's Time to Engineer the Sky: Global warming is so rampant that some scientists say we should begin altering the stratosphere to block sunlight, even if it jeopardizes rain and crops | SciAm
  • Of course I'm making this shit up, that's the whole point. Because I don't know what tomorrow is made of. And I'm just pointing out that OP doesn't know either.

    He is pontificating about how things cannot change, how he got everything figured out, but in the end he is just a random guy on the internet talking out of his ass, like all of us.

  • It's Time to Engineer the Sky: Global warming is so rampant that some scientists say we should begin altering the stratosphere to block sunlight, even if it jeopardizes rain and crops | SciAm
  • Yes, and here you are also assuming "people" is a homogenous group, that the western culture you are from (aren't you ?) is hegemonic.

    But looking at how geopolitics are evolving lately, the world is increasingly multipolar, with multiple models of civilization competing. I don't know, maybe India will wake the fuck up before us and thrive, while Europe rots and USA goes down the toilet drain?

  • It's Time to Engineer the Sky: Global warming is so rampant that some scientists say we should begin altering the stratosphere to block sunlight, even if it jeopardizes rain and crops | SciAm
  • You are passing a lot of assumptions as facts here.

    But the problem is: the world won’t stop polluting, won’t stop growing its economies, won’t stop expanding.

    Unless you are a time traveler, this is a belief, not a fact.

    Even if the US and Europe cut their emissions and slow down, the developing world, India and China and Nigeria and Kenya, and so on, won’t. They see the standard of living in the West, they think their people deserve to live just as well, and they see we got there through unchecked resource consumption within a capitalist economic system, and how the hell do we have the right to tell those countries to stay poor for the sake of the environment when we got rich by fucking the environment?

    Here you are assuming a lot about how those countries / populations might analyze the situation. Also, that the path we followed to develop is the only one, and that they are bound to follow our example. That's quite a colonialist point of view.

    So the only things that will save the world are globally organized, probably UN coordinated, technological solutions to mitigate the damage done by unchecked capitalist expansion, because we can’t stop capitalism.

    If you start from the premise that there is no alternative to capitalism, that this rather young form of social organization is the end of human history, I can understand why you reach that conclusion. But don't assume that your line of reasoning is the only logical conclusion one can reach.

  • Scientists Warn 1 Billion People on Track to Die From Climate Change
  • This is wrong on so many levels ... Leaving aside the trollish sociopathic nature of the comment, the billion who will die does not pollute much, so it won't make much difference for those who survive and keep on gulping fossils and materials.

  • America Is Using Up Its Groundwater Like There’s No Tomorrow
  • Maybe we should, but I'm not sure we can - because one (nuclear + desalination) acts as a disincentive to the other (actually chaning practice).

    Also, building a nuclear reactor takes a lot of time (do we have it ?), changing agricultural practices can start right now and scale progressively.

  • Architect here. How can I be the most helpful?
  • Hey there. As a non-architect interested in self-built housing, I found the barefoot architect quite interesting. I see this book as grassroot, community oriented architecture and urban planification (on a small scale). Maybe you'll find some inspiration here?

    Also, I don't know where you're from, but in some countries legislation makes it mandatory to have and architect review what you plan to build - maybe with your expertise and your ability to sign construction plans, you could assist self-builders in their projects?

  • InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)TG
    Edmond Dantesk @slrpnk.net
    Posts 1
    Comments 11