|
|
|
|
|
by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5
2348 days ago
|
|
It's going to require significant CO2 investment (upfront payment for long term material benefit) if we want to reduce CO2 output materially. The thesis is for us to get there, we need to increase CO2 output, not reduce it. Let's think about how much CO2 investment would be required to fulfill these projects in the "Green New Deal": * Coast to coast high-speed rail. * Retrofitting all major buildings in the USA with better technologies. * Decommissioning dirty power plants. * Building nation-wide wind and other green power generating infrastructure. And we should put our foot on the gas for new green energy research. Inventing better and more efficient technologies has the benefit of reducing global CO2 output. |
|
ftfy.
The truth is that we could reduce emissions by living less affluent lifestyles, like, say, the 1950s. Smaller houses, fewer per capita miles driven, little or no intercontinental or transcontinental flights, less meat. But we won't. We cannot step off the hedonistic treadmill, even for a second, or the economy will collapse. And we can think of nothing worse than the economy collapsing. So we create a false dilemma, an impossible constraint system. So we will fail.