Harpocryptes on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Thomas pfp

@aviationdoctor.eth

The record cancelation of flights out of Phoenix, Arizona in the summer of 2017 due to unusually high air temperature is the reason I picked my doctoral research topic on the impacts of climate change on aviation. Now, Phoenix set another unfortunate record: 100 straight days of 100°F (~38°C) or greater heat, beating the previous streak by 3.5 weeks. The death toll will likely be in the hundreds this year (it was 645 last year for the whole Maricopa county). But of course, this does not include the death of local fauna and flora, which is silent until we find our food chains disrupted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/09/03/phoenix-100-degree-temperatures-record/

18 replies

3 recasts

73 reactions

youssef pfp

do you have an opinion on carbon capture/direct air capture? how real is it?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Nico pfp

It's real, but impact is nothing compared to preventing emissions in the first place. Even natural carbon capture suffers from heat. We are asked to plant trees, but heat makes them absorb less carbon... So the more we emit the less our carbon capture is working. If it require to build industrial plants to absorb emission from industrial plants... Not sure we can get out of it easily... The main way is to emit less, meaning producing less, meaning less consumption of energy, goods, travels, meat, ... Some people already do that, some people are willing to do it, but most people don't even consider it and some even oppose hard on changing their way of living.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

youssef pfp

thanks for the answer I thought maybe engineered carbon capture could scale a lot more than trees (given clean energy to power it) and thus could offset the emissions that are too hard to stop while the clean energy transition happens

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Nico pfp

Also, there's a big paradox here about transitioning: if we find ways to absorb GHGs to help until we find a way to reduce emissions, there's no reason to reduce emissions as we can absorb them. So, many people who would prefer to keep emitting (and keep non viable lifestyle) are going to believe in technology being able to solve the issue. But it really is a matter of scale, it's like emptying the sea with a tea spoon actually.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Harpocryptes pfp

For a large part, we already know how to reduce emissions. For the first time in history, we have a Tragedy of the commons situation at the scale of the entire humanity.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Thomas pfp

@aviationdoctor.eth

The quickest fix to this tragedy of the commons is taxation at the well. The environmental and social cost of a ton of CO2 is somewhere between $150 and $250, depending on the estimates. If the cost of this externality was charged upstream, and therefore universally included regardless of how the oil is refined and used, we would see a very rapid weaning and shift away from fossil fuels. Yes, it might be at the expense of some economic growth in the short and mid term. But that growth we enjoy today isn’t free — we are just passing on the externality to future generations who are unwillingly subsidizing us. They are too young or too unborn to consent. That’s what the Citizens’ Climate Lobby is advocating for. Everybody can join and add their voices to the proposed legislation. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

1 reply

1 recast

2 reactions

Harpocryptes pfp

Right, a carbon tax fixes the tragedy of the commons inside the jurisdiction that enacts it. That leaves two subproblems: 1. Make it popular to enact it (for democracies). I think a promising option is to redistribute the proceeds of the "tax" equally. Since the median citizen consumes (much) less than the average, most would benefit, precisely the poorer who might suffer the most otherwise. 2. There's still a tragedy of the commons *between* jurisdictions (countries, economic zones) since they share one atmosphere. The rise of nationalism worries me here.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Thomas pfp

@aviationdoctor.eth

Agreed. But to the second point: as of 2020, only four countries accounted for half of all CO2 emissions: the US, China, Russia, and Germany. It’s possible that Russia fell off, but directionally the Pareto effect is in full play here. It’s no trivial feat to get those top countries to agree, but if we got at least the US, China, and the EU on board, we’d solve more than half of the problem right off the bat. The US is unlikely to agree under a Trump administration, and China is unlikely to agree unless (at least) the US is also onboard. But getting either one or both to legislate this would send a very powerful signal to everyone else.

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions