Some friends of ours strapped down their roof for Hurricane Georges. They lived in a wood frame house on a hill and knew better than to just trust that everything would be ok.

Anyway, they still had a roof after the hurricane, but the winds were still strong enough to lift the roof up, damaging the joints between the rafters and the main posts holding the roof up. This damage I saw with my own eyes.

Wind shear can be remarkably strong at 140 mph, blowing across a roof like that. It would be a shame to lose the house because you didn’t take two hours to put some straps over it.

Is this it?

You make a good point. If there were no potential solution, trees (i.e. sustainable agriculture) would be the best solution. It would take a few hundred years but we would get back to pre-industrial levels at zero emissions.

The potential solution is direct air capture. Although there are many forms, I am fond of the method proposed by Klaus Lackner. By making a large number of CO₂ scrubbers, as opposed to a few very large ones (like Climeworks), the economics of carbon removal get very easy, very fast.

A 1 m² area that gets an average 2 m/s breeze through it sees about a gram of CO₂ pass through every second. This is about 100 kg of CO₂ per day. So let’s make a machine that catches CO₂ from a 2 × 5 m area and catch 1 t per day, or 300 t per year. For this machine to pay off its carbon debt, it’s going to need to be around for a while, say 10 years. What happened during those 10 years? 3 kt went out of the atmosphere for good. If you liquefied the CO₂, this would fill 3 McMansions.

Lackner seems to think we can build this machine for $100k. Now we have a price of $30/t of CO₂ captured. As it stands, we need to get about 1,000 Gt of CO₂ out of the atmosphere to stabilize the climate, so we need to build $30T worth of these machines. How could we possibly afford that? Well, we would spend ~$1T on this per year for about 30 years.

Where would that kind of money come from? Sacrifices would be needed, it’s true. I think the biggest would be giving up on war. Global defense budgets add up to this scale of funding, and if the nations of the world decided to put an end to war, we could use the peace dividend to pay for the restoration of the climate. Perhaps there wouldn’t be any other sacrifices needed at all.

If this seems unrealistic to you, that’s ok too. We can still keep war and do things the slow way or (more likely) not do them at all. I suppose a decade-long nuclear winter would also do wonders for global cooling and emission reductions. Personally, though, I would prefer world peace and direct air capture to stabilize the climate.

I think, from your post, you would agree. If we are going to fight, we should fight climate change, not each other, no?

Of course, trees should be planted, but the notion that they are an expedient way of decarbonizing the atmosphere is plainly wrong. Had nature optimized plant life to remove carbon from the atmosphere, there would be no CO2, no plants, and the planet would be a snowball instead of the vibrant, warm (too warm) climate we have today. Nature maintains stasis - and therefore life - by avoiding carbon sequestration.

You may have seen the Keeling Curve, the “graph of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii from 1958 to the present day.” Notice that it goes up and then down in Seasonal Variation. This is because, during the summer months in the Northern hemisphere, all the plant life decarbonized the air to form new leaves and greenery. Then, in the winter, all the leaves fell back to the ground where they were consumed by fungi and detrivores and converted back to CO2.

Suppose we stopped producing fossil fuels tomorrow. The Keeling Curve would still have seasonal variation, but it would be against a constant mean, rather than the current rising one. If we then just planted more trees, the seasonal variation would increase, perhaps, but the mean would remain more or less constant. While beneficial, none of the planting would make more than a dent in the hundreds of billions of tons of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. The potential for soil sequestration is on the order of 1 Gt/year.[source] That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t practice sustainable agriculture and forestry, rather we should, but it won’t reduce our carbon debt or start to reverse climate change. Believing that it will is just magical thinking, coincidentally an inadvertent implication of the meme.

Given that nature is (almost) perfectly inefficient at long-term carbon sequestration, it would seem that effective, long-term decarbonization of the atmosphere on any scale short of millennia has to include mechanical means, no matter how inefficient such means may appear.

Hey, what are the exact dimensions of the part with the thermal paste? I’d be curious know just how much area is being covered.

Because crystallography and solid state chemistry is the foundation of every modern convenience?

But it’s also beautiful. If they’ve never heard of Bravais-Friedel-Donnay-Harker, then you can’t really blame them for not knowing.

Is that the symbol for bleem?

Plenty of trees could be planted with $500 billion, but the timeframe to sequester the carbon the biosphere would be greatly extended. The reason that the author of the article discounts tree planting as a strategy for sequestration is that, as you may have noticed, trees release much of their carbon back into the biosphere in winter when they drop their leaves onto the ground. These leaves are then converted back into CO2 by the many fungi, bacteria, and detrivores on the forest floor.

As a result, there is more disruption caused by climate change. I think planting trees is an excellent idea, and that we should definitely do it, but it’s not an atmospheric carbon mitigation strategy.

If you are interested in this, look into carbon sequestration rates of switchgrass and elephant grass.

This seems like a pretty clear cut case for air capture and carbon sequestration. At $22 trillion and $100 per tonne, you could amortize it over 40 years to drop the cost down to $500 billion per year, substantially less than the FY 2024 U.S. Department of Defense budget request. Expensive, but not impossibly or exorbitantly so.

In this light, it could be claimed that global warming is merely the cost of war in externalities. Rather, the peace dividend from world peace would easily pay for the remediation of anthropogenic carbon. Conversely, the funds that might be used to pay for mitigation of global warming will likely continue to be used to fund warfare until the countries of the world commit to disarm and cease hostilities.

The most effective way, then, to raise the funds needed to pay for decarbonization is to advocate for world peace and universal disarmament.

HCP FTW.

Yeah, if that’s what Johnny Cash was talking about, then what was Trent Reznor talking about?

I’d encourage you to think about these events as you would a physical injury. A physical injury can hurt for a long time and no amount of recognition or “processing” or “getting over it” can short-cut the all-too-slow healing that needs to take place. It’s no fun and there’s no way to just make it go away.

That said, you can do things that care for the injury while it is healing. I don’t know what these are for you, but for me, I needed to recognize that the people I was angry at were also instrumental in helping me advance.

For example, I had a string of terrible jobs with bad bosses, but that string of terrible jobs led me to someplace that I am very happy to work. Once I realized this, it started getting easier to recognize both that the way I was treated was wrong and that I was also glad that these people were essential to me get to where I am. Even so, it was a long process and physically painful. My anger towards these people did nothing to hurt them, but it was terrible on my health.

I’m sorry you had to experience these things, but I hope they eventually lead you to someplace better.