Comment by runarberg
3 years ago
> We have to find ways to sequester. And we have to find ways to live in a warmer climate. It's the most probable outcome.
This is not the only conclusion from your excellent observation. Another conclusion could be that rich nations fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries without asking anything in return. I believe this is what the climate relief fund is about—as approved (albeit in a much too small scale) in last COP.
So far however rich nations are not only reluctant to fund infrastructure projects in other countries without anything in return—let alone green infrastructure projects—they are also reluctant to fund green infrastructure projects domestically (see e.g. Green New Deal in the US). The technology for mass carbon sequestration does not exist yet, and if it existed I bet it would follow the same prospects as current prospects of tackling the climate crisis. In short, they will not be built at the scale needed for any meaningful results.
This is often the case when you offer a technical solution to a societal or a political problem.
So the solution isn’t a real solution? You know what’s harder than carbon capture? Re-engineering human nature.
Has been done multiple times over. Successful examples include global ban on ozone depleting chemicals, multiple standards for international trade, just run of the mill law and policy, human rights, etc.
It is in human nature not to destroy our climate, it took extremely wealthy and persistent class of polluters concentrated effort for the past few decades to prevent climate actions from various governments. Human populations—most of which residing in democracies—would have loved for governments to ratify the various treaties that would have saved our climate. As it is in our nature to do so. Only inhumane action has doomed our climate.
None of that requires meaningful sacrifice in material standards of living.
4 replies →