>>17011580
>How do we stop global warming
By ignoring the news.

>>17011580
Shove a garlic clove up your ass. That will do it

>>17011580
More air conditioning. That will cool the planet

>>17011580
Nuclear winter

>>17011580
We need to plant a lot of trees in Africa and use Africans as fertilizer. We also need stricter laws about what kinds of products are legal to produce, sell and own – no more shopping addictions and fast fashion.

Carbon removal and total ban on fossil fuels. Just Wind, Sun and Water, nature's energy.

GMO trees to sequester massive amounts of carbon above what a normal tree does then using the lumber for mass home construction, real wood furniture, and even large wooden framed skyscrapers. To be fair I haven't found out the details of how to make the GMO trees and it won't be easy. But nature makes a natural CO2 scrubber in the form of the tree. Lumber once harvested and used in things like homes sequester the carbon for decades or even 100+ years. As other anons said, just plant trees. Watch this thread blow up with the tree haters and people advocating huge doomsday machines to scrub the carbon which themselves take tons of carbon to build and run. Never going to work, you're burning fuel to run a carbon scrubber to scrub the air of carbon you made to burn the fuel to run the carbon scrubber. The answer is biological and always has been. Grass lands with their highly efficient C4 photosynthesis pathway are also a great carbon sink that feeds free range cattle and bison humans can eat for carbon neutral meat. Large replanted forests would also be home to large game like deer and elk that would explode in populations as well providing a free range meat source for people. You could use the forests for small game as well that would provide meat and furs humans could use as clothing. Once people have buck skin items that last a lifetime things like fast fashion will die and the overall carbon output falls dramastically.

>>17011662
Trees don't work as a solution just based on the scale of the problem. Even turning the entire earths surface area into tree plantations would not reverse the CO2 trend and doing that would reduce our available calories by nearly 100%, that's without even mentioning what it would do to farm lands to grow bamboo on them and then dump all nutrients absorbed straight into oceans. There's of course the problem that the whole thing can't be done economically, world is already pretty much sufficient in wood production so the extra just ends up being dumped into the ocean and of course the small issue that most of earths surface area isn't actually suitable for mass tree farms.
Solar panel negates much more CO2 output than a tree absorbs it in any given surface area and solar panels actually make a product that most people would want a lot more off.

Combustion engines can use oil and fuel from vegetable waste like corn stocks and grass. They do not strictly need petroleum.

>>17011581
/thread

File: FF.jpg (175 KB, 700x467)

175 KB JPG

>>17011668
Holly strawman argument Batman. I didn't say any of the things you said. Nor do I ascribe to "global warming" I'm simply stating that trees are the only answer that isn't some foolish perpetual motion machine where by you spend less carbon making and running it than it can sequester. I personally think we can have even higher levels of CO2 then we currently have. Since food crops breath CO2 to make food increased global CO2 makes farms more productive and you can have less land to feed more people.

No one said destroy all the farm land, no one said throw bamboo in the ocean. I said grasslands that large animals like bison can feed on and we'd eat the bison and cows that graze on the grass. Furthermore row style open air agriculture is insanely inefficient the proper way to grow food at scale with way less waste is in giant vertical food factories that use clear greenhouse style roofs and/or advanced LEDs. Growing food this way can yield between 10-500 times the produce in the same foot print and allows you to eliminate insecticide and herbicide, like roundup. Vertical food factories also reduce food miles that food needs gas to travel to your kitchen by as much as 99%. This creates a positive feedback loop by where we are growing more food, for less time, less money, 365 days a year, and using a fraction of a fraction of carbon to do so compared to a diesel tractor plowing row crops and shipping a potato 2000 miles in a diesel semi truck. So no, we won't starve, the food factories would more than make up for any lost farms and the farms that do grow row crops will see increased yields due to a healthy CO2 level in the atmosphere. The trees would sequester the carbon as lumber that's used in homes and products and the NATURAL GRASS LANDS will NATURALLY sequester carbon in the soil as it always has. No one is talking about dumping bamboo in the ocean. Even if we did grow bamboo it's also a valuable resource that can be used for clothing and goods. BASTA

>>17011749
>>17011749
Since I know you're going to straw man me again I looked it up and intense rotational grazing of cattle on private land when done right is actually the most efficient at carbon sequestration. So my plan would only work with private industry and private farms as well. The large natural grasslands are more of a small part of a bigger plan. If the beef is entirely grass feed it's better for the cows, better for the people eating them, and better for the environment in every way. There is no costly carbon intensive grains used to fatten up cows which require fertilizer, tractors, and transshipment. The truth is our grasslands aren't big enough for our beef needs and the rotational grazing on private ranches sequester carbon best.

If private farmers switch from open air row crops to enclosed farming with glass top greenhouses on an industrial scale this dramatically reduces carbon inputs and produce 10-15 times the food per acre than before. They can use way less insecticide and herbicide which are highly toxic and require carbon to make and ship. So in reality it would be a multi-prong attack via the private sector modernizing and the public sector planting trees and grass wherever possible. Even urban and suburban areas could and should be packed full of trees when possible. But I will walk my original rant back a little and say the key is the private sector evolving and becoming more efficient which it currently is not. The solution isn't trees alone but they are an important and easy to do part of that solution.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

>>17011749
>>17011774
Carbon is good and as much carbon should be pumped into the atmosphere as possible.

You are both playing in a false dichotomy manufactured by Klaus Schwab.

File: may2018_a18-4167156231.jpg (14 KB, 274x253)

14 KB JPG

>>17011715
Yes because the solution is to farm MORE land. We need to cover MORE of the world with corn and onions monoculture.

Perhaps the thing nobody wants to admit is that stopping global warming is antithetical to capitalism and the status quo for the past 100 years. Perhaps what really needs to happen is that we get rid of jobs and all this advanced "infrastructure" like data centers, but also factories, colleges, bitcoin mining rigs, etc. Clearly if the free markets were able to solve the problem of global warming by themselves they would have done so already, but instead we get onions creatures on reddit and twitter telling you to buy 80k electric cars that rust over, keep track of your carbon footprint and start recycling initiatives where all the waste gets sent to China. It's all just a bunch of theatrics to distract from the real elephant in the room: utopian notions of "progress" and the singularity are a lie.

Global warming is not an opportunity to make money. It's the externalized cost of everything we've done since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

>>17011800
We need to grow trees and throw them into a pit underground so the carbon goes back underground

By embracing electric cars.

inb4 "NOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT LIKE THAT"

>>17011815
Even if we filled the Mariana trench up with lumber there's still enough oil in the Earth to completely replace the sequestered carbon several times over.

Vertical farming is a meme and you're just trying to replace the sun with LEDs, which have to be powered by fossil fuels. Unless you're going to use solar panels in which case lol at using the sun to replace the sun. Guaranteed efficiency losses. Vertical farming isn't feeding anyone.

I don't see any carbon sequestration plan as tenable outside of restoring a bunch of nature to put the carbon back in the soil. Mostly because it's the only truly passive way to sequester carbon. Besides, anything we could feasibly sequester will just get replaced with more emissions over time i.e. throwing a bunch of logs underground wont get rid of the data centers spiking emissions from coal plants, or all those billions of ICE vehicles on the road.

File: 1311190407476.jpg (67 KB, 650x474)

67 KB JPG

Just build LFTRs.

>>17011800
Ted was a capitalist, silly oversocialized leftist.

>>17011836
This. Thorium and Carbon will power the future.

>>17011833
>the sun to replace the sun. Guaranteed efficiency losses.
The "just plant trees" guy is a schizo but sun and plants are so hideously inefficient that led + solar panel can actually achieve some raw efficiency advantages by just avoiding frequencies plants don't use + optimal growing conditions. Vertical farming isn't feeding anyone not because it's inefficient (it's not) but because it costs shits tons in equipment and sun is free and land is almost free.
Of course when it comes to carbon emissions specifically there's no reason to vertically farm, the solar panel does 99% of the job already. Plants again being so inefficient are just mega mogged by solar as a carbon sink. Instead of farming wood to dump into oceans you are always better off just putting up solar panels to the same area (even better putting the solar on a desert and continuing to farm food to actually feed people in areas where you would plant the forests) and then investing into electrifying sources of CO2 instead like transport for instance.

>>17011867
I'm talking about vertical farming as a function of pure energy inputs. That is *if* we were to successfully transition away from fossil fuels without permanently fucking up the economy the net ratio of kilocals produced per kilowatt input for vertical farming is just so horrendously bad that it's just not going to happen. Yes, you gain photosynthetic efficiency by putting plants in a controlled environment, but that doesn't compensate for the electricity cost of climate control, running the LEDs and pumping water/nutrients. Not only that every vertical farming operation produces the exact same hydroponic lettuce and other leafy greens that are essentially luxury foods, and not the more calorie dense crops like wheat, because they can't. It's only viable to make lettuce. It's a joke.

>then investing into electrifying sources of CO2 instead like transport for instance.
I think it's pretty clear that electric cars can't decarbonize transportation. Too costly, too many human costs associated with mining cobalt and too expensive to recycle batteries. Add onto that you can't really increase the energy density of batteries without making them more fragile (there was a story a while back about fire departments having to buy specialized gear to put out lion battery fires from teslas). I believe what you're trying to say is that electrified public transit is the only viable way to decarbonize transportation.

>>17011580
make nuclear 99% of all power generation.

>>17011715
That's a stup use of food. Just use nuclear to make synthetic hydrocarbons out of atmospheric co2 and electrolyzed water.

File: 23234.jpg (334 KB, 1200x1200)

334 KB JPG

>>17011580
We ban burning coal as a fuel and complete the largest petrochemical infrastructure projects ever seen to build vast natural gas pipelines to every major metro area in the US.

Then we get china to do it, like the entire rest of the world has to cooperate together as a bloc to make this happen, there is no fucking way china will reduce its coal use on tis own in a reasonable timeframe otherwise, and if we don't do this, then anything the rest of the world does pretty much doesn't matter.

Coal is the most toxic, polluting, and CO2-rich fuel there is, literally if we want to improve air quality for millions we would ban burning coal. And switch to methane (natural gas) which is orders of magnitude cleaner-burning. Its combustion products include water and half the CO2 that burning coal releases. This means that you can capture the exhaust from burning natural gas and squeeze the heat energy out of it in a combined cycle gas generation plant, one of the best inventions of the last 50 years which is totally unusable with coal btw

THERE IS ONE MORE important thing however. Methane itself is actually 80x worse for global warming than CO2 if it escapes into the atmosphere, unburnt. We need to keep leaks on these pipelines to 3% or less for it to actually be better than coal. But, stopping those leaks is something a government financial incentive can help with I think. There are combined cycle plants and pipelines with less than 3% leakage, it is possible.

>>17011580
We can't. People have to live for God and each other instead of themselves

>>17011986
This is wildly optimistic, also Russia has this system and is not really the pinnacle of modernity. Having everything fitted to use the same type of fuel would be convenient but wouldn't we be better off with a true green energy like solar? Or hydro, geothermal, or fuel cells? Can you put the methane in fuel cells?

>>17011986
No, we must ban all global warming shills, global warming is a scam to rob the peasants, anti-carbonists are anti-human, anti-life and anti-nature.

File: scientificallyfeasible.png (141 KB, 380x347)

141 KB PNG

>>17011580

>>17011580
>global warming
Did you try turning off the sun?

ok, how about,
Killing all ching chongs, arabs, indians and negros.

>>17011659
So giving up on electricity and cars

>>17011580
Tell your mothers to control their sexuality and don't chimp out till it's over. (Which they will anyway because they have no say over the group unless they are all together on it)

>>17011886
>function of pure energy inputs
So was I, sun is just that bad.
>It's only viable to make lettuce
That's only from monetary standpoint, not energy standpoint. Like I said sun and land are free, vertical farming equipment isn't. Nothing wrong with vertical farming in terms of energy, everything wrong in terms of financials.
>I think it's pretty clear that electric cars can't decarbonize transportation.
Considering that it's quite literally happening as we speak I don't think it's all that clear actually.
>Too costly
Electric cars are typically cheaper than gasoline equivalents, especially if you actually put the co2 cost on the shoulders of the person actually using gasoline vehicle which you should but mostly isn't.
>too many human costs associated with mining cobalt
That's just a legislative issue, cobalt doesn't need slaves to be mining it, they just do it like that in congo because it's a shithole, just the same way coal and iron was mined by equivalent slaves just hundred years ago over in the west.
>too expensive to recycle batteries.
Mostly a meme born from the fact that there aren't enough batteries to recycle and largely irrelevant to carbon issue at hand.

File: 1769121077366710.jpg (164 KB, 500x500)

164 KB JPG

>>17011580
It will take care of itself, one way or another.

>>17012003
Indeed, solar panels and windmills depend on the whims of the elements, making then unreliable, not to mention really expensive, they just seem cheaper because they receive absene amounts of subsidies.

File: Hjort_2018_permafrost_inf(...).png (3.06 MB, 1920x1365)

3.06 MB PNG

Removing CO2 is all well and good. We need to do it and we need to remove as much sources of CO2 as possible but that is not the biggest problem we have.

Biggest problem is thawing of permafrost in Siberia. While we know what we can do to combat CO2 pollution we have no idea what we can do to combat insane amounts of methane that was, up until recently trapped in and below permafrost. From what i have read amounts released are significantly higher than all the livestock on planet earth combined.

>>17011580
Ask AI

>>17012028
The tradeoff for vertical farming is that you can use land, light and water much more efficiently at the cost of requiring massive electricity inputs. The primary bottleneck people will face in a future without fossil fuels will be electricity, and I don't really see how vertical farming produces enough food to justify its electricity cost. Again, the kilocals per kilowatt input just isn't there since you can really only grow hydroponic lettuce. Vertical farms are going bankrupt today because even with cheap electricity from fossil fuels they still don't make sense economically.

>Electric cars are typically cheaper than gasoline equivalents, especially if you actually put the co2 cost on the shoulders of the person actually using gasoline vehicle which you should but mostly isn't.
The most expensive part of an electric car is the battery by a wide margin. Despite this lion battery technology hasn't really changed since the 80s. You face fundamental limits to how energy dense you can make a battery, and every few years a new battery type gets hyped up, like graphene, solid state or sodium ion, but while these have higher energy densities their cost just can't compare to lithium ion. Electric cars are most certainly not cheaper than gasoline vehicles, since even a low end model will run you 50k, and the battery wears out over 5-10 years anyways so it's not exactly clear how electric car initiatives will age, because again the battery is by far the most expensive part of the car.

Quite simply it feels as if we are trying to force electrification onto something that just isn't compatible with electrification at the scale we need it to be, and I think the economics around electric cars as high end luxury vehicles shows it. The only solution I see is electrified public transit, and that will only happen when the 1st world collapses and we're begging for relief from regular heat kills.

from what i've gathered, the only real solution is to abolish private property (and ideally, white people)

>>17012294
If there were no people on the planet nobody would complain about global warming. Plain and simple.

>>17012280
I feel like you aren't really reading my posts or replying to me by accident.
> Again, the kilocals per kilowatt input just isn't there
Again this is just wrong.
>Vertical farms are going bankrupt today
Because the equipment is expensive and land and sun are free. Nothing to do with energy efficiency.
> even with cheap electricity from fossil fuels
Renewables provide much cheaper energy than fossil fuels.
>The most expensive part of an electric car is the battery by a wide margin
So what they are still cheaper than gas cars or own and operate and again they are being rolled out literally right now, there are several places in the world where electric cars make up the majority of new car sales and in every place of the world they are grabbing an increasing marker share.
>Electric cars are most certainly not cheaper than gasoline vehicles, since even a low end model will run you 50k
You are off by a magnitude there.
>and the battery wears out over 5-10 years anyways
And almost by one there as well
>Quite simply it feels
What you feel just isn't true but it does explain your posts. You are simply wrong and that's ok.

>>17012331
The cheapest full-size sedan EV you can buy in the united states is the Chevrolet Bolt, which costs 28k.
The Nissan leaf, its competitor, costs 31k

BYD has models in the 5-15k range. We have nothing that can fucking compete, its actually just you are from China or Europe and think the US allows those cars that you are seeing to be for sale here, we don't.

BYD vehicles aren't going to be in the US for another 10 years actually because of how restrictive it is

>>17012294
>>17012300
The government needs to ban sex, relationships, breeding, human interactions, and ultimately humans, it's the only way to stop global warming.

if the government bans life and living global warming will be solved.

>>17012365
>allowed
That's a political issue on your end again simply not relevant. It's like saying coal is best for the environment if everything but coal is banned, also known as being dumb as bricks.

>>17012280
>vertical farming produces enough food to justify its electricity cost
You are right on the fact that right now hydroponics are less efficient and have limited specter of fruits and vegetables that can be produced that way. On the other hand price has to be paid somewhere. Hydroponics shifts price to electricity and manual labor since ecosystem cand do it's part but maybe that is a price that we need to pay.
>The most expensive part of an electric car is the battery by a wide margin
Most expensive single part, yes. But that could change. CATL projects that sodium-ion batteries will hit 40usd/KWh at about half of energy density of lithium batteries and two to three times the number of cycles before hitting 85% capacity and having wider (both lower and higher) temperature operational range. They have them in lab condition right now but not yet ready for mass production.
>Electric cars are most certainly not cheaper than gasoline vehicles
Right now they are on par when you count in governmental incentives. They still have some problems and thanks to increased weight some new ones but it's a paradigm shift we will have to adapt to.

All in all, we need electrification if only because it's easy to filter few large polluters than tens or hundreds of distributed ones. And we need to go nuclear. Renewables are great but they won't be even remotely enough to feed global electrification of transport, heating etc.

>>17012331
>I feel like you aren't really reading my posts or replying to me by accident.
No I'm reading your posts, you're just being a retard. Vertical farming is a meme. It doesn't work for all the reasons I just said.

>What you feel just isn't true but it does explain your posts. You are simply wrong and that's ok.
I think I explained my post quite well actually. Besides, higher battery energy density is moot if the batteries degrade after 5-10 years, because again, the battery is the most expensive part of an EV by far.

>there are several places in the world where electric cars make up the majority of new car sales
You conveniently forgot to mention that basically all of this demand (outside of China, but their EV push has over problems) is being driven by the luxury car market. 90% of people in the US lack the money to blow on a 50k EV, especially when it's a car, which isn't considered a very important asset outside of getting you from point A to point B. Once the luxury car market gets sated there wont be anyone left to buy any of these cars, since you can just go to any auto lot and pick up a 15k preowned sedan. We can force everyone to use EVs, disconnect all those gas stations and have the state seize everyone's cars, and that is the Communist route, but there will be consequence. You have to give people recourse for a means of transportation or else they can't go to their jobs and keep society running (electrified public transit).

Regardless, I believe that this kind of push may actually happen if things get rough enough. Just look at India: they routinely have thousands of heat deaths each year, and I think that's the future of the rest of the planet. Once the heat kills ramp up like in France a few weeks ago surely there will be a push to do something. I think that future politics might be oriented around going to war with the biggest polluters like China and the US, since on some level maybe heat deaths can be considered an act of war.

>>17012400
>electricity and manual labor since ecosystem cand do it's part but maybe that is a price that we need to pay.
That's my point, it's a non starter. A world without fossil fuels is an electricity constrained world, and I don't think it's a price we can pay. Notice how I said electricity constrained, and not a world without electricity.

>They have them in lab condition right now but not yet ready for mass production.
Yes, like I said sodium ion batteries are the latest alternative battery to be hyped up, and that does give me hope, but as to whether they can perform as advertised I'll believe it when I see it. Promises are cheap, but results are expensive. Also one thing about the battery hype cycle is that it is at least partially hindering EV adoption, since why buy a lion EV today when they're going to have a better sodium ion one in a few years?

>All in all, we need electrification
Yes, I agree! We need electrification. As to whether it's possible to electrify society the way it currently is is a different story altogether. We need tangible emissions reductions right now, and the promise of a glimpse of a glimmer of a hope of a better battery in 10 years with another potential 40 years added onto that timeframe doesn't reduce emissions today. Perhaps the magnitude of this year's El nino will illustrate to you just how urgent this issue truly is.

>>17011580
Thin out the atmosphere. That will reduce the heat retention of the planet and allow more heat to radiate out into space

>>17012416
>Yes, like I said sodium ion batteries are the latest alternative battery to be hyped up
Sodium batteries are older than lithium ones and CATL is producing them for a long time. Problem always was that there was no enough market to reach economy of mass production. Luckily for few years no they are making them in enormous amounts for stationary uses and they, in cooperation with BYD, are selling town cars with them.

Thing is that they managed to reach what was seen as holy grail of Sodium batteries and they forecast that technology will be ready for mass production at the end of 2027. With 12000 to 15000 cycles guaranteed (till they fall to 85% of capacity) they will be basically lifetime batteries.

So lets hope they are right.

File: brave_vt9ZmsxA4l.png (74 KB, 829x529)

74 KB PNG

>>17012430
It'll never have the pure charge delivery and "kick" of Lithium, see picrel

>>17011837
really not a big fan of seeing the full electron configuration for Thorium. 90 fucking little dots in the shells, holy fuck this atom makes me upset

I prefer we don't develop any thorium tech, we should use something with fewer electrons

>>17012404
>It doesn't work for all the reasons I just said.
You have been wrong on all the reasons you stated though.
>I think I explained my post quite well actually.
Yes, you believe stupid stuff which makes you feel in a way that isn't aligned with reality. It happens a lot.
>You conveniently forgot to mention that basically all of this demand (outside of China, but their EV push has over problems) is being driven by the luxury car market.
This is just not true. You are extremely detached from reality.

>>17012441
Use your brain a bit. You just need more of them in parallel configuration. Yea, voltage and peak current of lithium batteries are higher but that just means you need more sodium batteries for the same job. Which we already knew since the 1/2 of power density of lithium was the goal for full scale commercialization of sodium batteries.

global warming is a hoax
global warming is a myth
global warming is a lie
total carbon victory

File: eat the bug.png (1.84 MB, 1266x1175)

1.84 MB PNG

>>17011580
The problem is not electricity or cars. The problem are billionaires. They must be obliterated to save mankind from their evil greed.

>>17012500
Billionaires love humanity, that's why god blesses them with money

Can double solar output every 1.5-3 years
Storage solved by graphite thermal batteries
>>17012049
New panels generate electricity even in weaker light conditions

Thorium salt reactors that actually work

>>17012858
>Vibecoders to the rescue
All so tiresome

>>17011581
It does not exist. Fear porn.

>>17011580
Cover the deserts with mirrors.

it is said that plants love carbon dioxide

>>17011580
accelerated silicate weathering.

Basically grind basalt into rough pebbles, dump them into shallow places of the ocean with lots of wave-energy/strong currents, let the dissolved carbonic acid react with the silicates.
The issue is that we'd have to go gigatons per year of that amount. The other option is tnuke the indian ocean floor to free up those basalts for weathering.

>>17012056
Set it on fire, CO2 has lower GHG potential than CH4.

>>17012049
>solar panels and windmills depend on the whims of the elements
Oil lobbyists pushed that faulty line. While they are dependant on the sun and wind respectively the gap in output is extremely exaggerated. Oil and gas has always fixated on "reliability" in their rhetoric for decades. The actual "flaw" in renewable like wind and solar is that you can't store the energy that freely and you need modern plants and energy control to adjust the energy balance during peak energy hours.

>not to mention really expensive, they just seem cheaper because they receive absene amounts of subsidies.
First point, they aren't expensive at all. That line is also lobbyist slop. 2nd of all is that ALL ENERGY SOURCES GET SUBSIDIES, ITS WHAT STATES DO AT THE BARE MINIMUM . Carbon energy sources receive the highest amounts among all energy sources but they always down play that by saying they are universally "cheap".

>>17011580
Simple really.
Stop paying people to use energy just to get money to pay people.

>>17011580
kill all chinese and indians