6 ms·

> so that in the future when the shit really hits the fan we have enough energy and assistance from AI to create a scalable technology to pull CO2 out of the at

> so that in the future when the shit really hits the fan we have enough energy and assistance from AI to create a scalable technology to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere proactively. > In my view there is no credible future in which the world will become carbon neutral in 1 or even 10 years. It just ain't happening. So we're going to skip becoming carbon neutral and go straight to carbon negative, because...magic, I guess?

geertj 1mo ago
> So we're going to skip becoming carbon neutral and go straight to carbon negative Yes, when the effects on the environments are so bad that there can be no denying anymore because they affect everyday life of almost all people. I am not saying this is a good option. I am saying that I don't see an alternative to get a world wide mobilization. Do you see China and the US becoming carbon neutral in the next 10 year? The annoying "magic" dig was unnecessary. With (clean) energy abundance you can indeed capture enough CO2 to make a world wide impact.
- antisthenes 1mo ago
  > Yes, when the effects on the environments are so bad that there can be no denying anymore because they affect everyday life of almost all people. I can't reconcile 2 things here. The effects will be so bad, but at the same time we will have energy abundance to go beyond carbon neutral and carbon negative. Have you ever lived in a country with famine or where energy/water is only available for few hours a day? Do you think such country has a capability to have energy abundance for carbon storage. > The annoying "magic" dig was unnecessary. I'll decide what's necessary in my comments, thank you very much. Unless you want to get responses like "your entire comment wasn't necessary", to which I will not stoop to. > With (clean) energy abundance you can indeed capture enough CO2 to make a world wide impact. I've yet to see how that is possible from your comment. Maybe it is "annoying" to you to provide some arguments, but that's how discussions work between adults.

geertj 1mo ago

> So we're going to skip becoming carbon neutral and go straight to carbon negative Yes, when the effects on the environments are so bad that there can be no denying anymore because they affect everyday life of almost all people. I am not saying this is a good option. I am saying that I don't see an alternative to get a world wide mobilization. Do you see China and the US becoming carbon neutral in the next 10 year? The annoying "magic" dig was unnecessary. With (clean) energy abundance you can indeed capture enough CO2 to make a world wide impact.

antisthenes 1mo ago
> Yes, when the effects on the environments are so bad that there can be no denying anymore because they affect everyday life of almost all people. I can't reconcile 2 things here. The effects will be so bad, but at the same time we will have energy abundance to go beyond carbon neutral and carbon negative. Have you ever lived in a country with famine or where energy/water is only available for few hours a day? Do you think such country has a capability to have energy abundance for carbon storage. > The annoying "magic" dig was unnecessary. I'll decide what's necessary in my comments, thank you very much. Unless you want to get responses like "your entire comment wasn't necessary", to which I will not stoop to. > With (clean) energy abundance you can indeed capture enough CO2 to make a world wide impact. I've yet to see how that is possible from your comment. Maybe it is "annoying" to you to provide some arguments, but that's how discussions work between adults.