This is MUCH Easier then CUTTING into Billionaires Profits!
Yeah, this can even be sold so billionaires get even richer!
And as the governments will pay for it, we all automatically pay for it
How sweet is that?
Yes it is, and yes, billionaires need to disappear
Having said that, we may not have an option. We've allowed assholes and billionaires to destroy the planet for such a long time that we will likely need measures beyond capturing CO2
Hell, capturing CO2 itself doesn't make much sense until nearly all CO2 generating power sources have been replaced, and we're not nearly close to that. And even when we do start really capturing CO2, if we spend half the world's energy budged in that, we'd still need to keep that up for decades at least to get to acceptable levels. Yes, we've been pumping CO2 into our environment at alarming rates for a fucking long time, and all the energy we got in exchange also needs to be spent (plus a whole lot extra) to get it out of the atmosphere again.
One of the things we can do is using the same pollutants from back in the 80s that caused acidic rain. Obviously this isn't what you want, but one of the side effects nis that it cooled the planet, which IS what we want. This could buy us maybe a few decades of reprieve
Or cutting into their flesh with steak knives!
I can't see how this could possibly go wrong . . . except in every possible way.
What? You DON'T want another K-T?
We have K-T at home.
goddamn it did y'all motherfuckers not watch Snowpiercer or what
I see a lotmof replies being very negative about this, and I get the gut reaction, but this actually maybe a good thing, sort of. We don't want it, but we may really need it
We've allowed assholes and billionaires to destroy the planet for such a long time that we will likely need measures beyond capturing CO2
Hell, capturing CO2 itself doesn't make much sense until nearly all CO2 generating power sources have been replaced, and we're not nearly close to that. And even when we do start really capturing CO2, if we spend half the world's energy budged in that, we'd still need to keep that up for decades at least to get to acceptable levels. Yes, we've been pumping CO2 into our environment at alarming rates for a fucking long time, and all the energy we got in exchange also needs to be spent (plus a whole lot extra) to get it out of the atmosphere again.
One of the things we can do is using the same pollutants from back in the 80s that caused acidic rain. Obviously this isn't what you want, but one of the side effects nis that it cooled the planet, which IS what we want. This could buy us maybe a few decades of reprieve while we fix the CO2 issue
yeah and if poisoning the air more does not help then we can try the water and earth some more. these are just not good even temporary solutions. you hit the nail on the head with we first and foremost have to stop producing greenhouse gases.
@silence7 “moving from computer modelling into serious practical engineering research”
More like skipping the step where they show their idea works in a computer model and going straight to polluting the atmosphere.
Maybe polluting the atmosphere without thinking about the consequences is what got us in this mess to begin with.
We're actually fairly sure it works; the big issue is that it will redistribute who gets rainfall.
@silence7 no, no we don’t.
We know it can have localized impacts that move the problem around and make it worse for others, which makes trying to implement it in an uncoordinated manner, particularly without a computer model driving the plan, a dick move
Snowpiercer, here we come!
Depressing that this will probably be used as an excuse to just keep burning more fossil fuels for even longer.