Climate Change Report

#2,877
#2,877
Greta Thunberg: How should global leaders use trillions of dollars to combat climate change?

some interesting logic from Greta

"If the people in power were the least bit honest about their strategies for staying below 1.5 or even 2 degrees Celsius of global average temperature rise, they would be pouring money into projects like the world’s biggest direct air carbon removal plant in Iceland. But there are still only 20 or so small carbon capture and storage plants running worldwide, some of which have been shown to actually emit more CO2 than they capture.
The carbon removal facility in Iceland has some serious scaling up to do — an effort that would dwarf all other human endeavors of the past.

Yet that is clearly not happening, which really makes no sense at all. Why foster the idea that this underdeveloped technology could be a substitute for the immediate, drastic mitigation needed? Why bet our entire civilization on it without making the slightest effort to make it work? Why make the world picture a potential solution so vividly that we include it in every possible future scenario and then fail to invest in it? Could it be that it was never even meant to work at scale?

So we should pour money into projects that are in some cases currently making matters worse? Further, to make them work it will take an effort that dwarfs all other human endeavors of the past (presumably space travel is on this list) to make them work yet it doesn't make sense we aren't pouring trillions into these projects?"

Other tortured logic in the piece but this one caught my attention.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top