That is absolutely great! But I will be really impressed if humanity as a whole ever "flattens the CO2 curve" -- still going up at a greater than linear rate!
At face value I was inclined to agree with you (SO2 causing acid rain and being generally impactful to health through cardiovascular and respiratory issues, damaging mammalian DNA, impacting hormones like testosterone etc.).
However given the strong role SO2 can play in reducing global warming, and that there are even proposals to introduce more SO2 to the atmosphere to achieve the Paris objectives, like most things in our complex interconnected world it gets a bit more complex.
Of course one hopes there are better responses to the changing climate than reactively doubling down on polluting contaminants into the atmosphere when that has contributed to the current mess and we clearly have narrow and incomplete understandings of systemic intervention.
I remember you posting a similar comment last year. Certainly emissions have flattened, but just looking at temperature data from the last two years, it seems likely that we have already set in motion some positive feedback loops which is quite bad news. I suspect we'll have little choice but to intentionally alter the albedo of the atmosphere rather soon in order to at least buy our selves a bit of time.
2025 emissions lower than 2024 emissions don't imply the flattening of the total ppm CO2 curve. It COULD result it that, but it's not a necessary outcome because of deforestation. Also, emissions accounting is sometimes wonky...
> Population is peaking soon which should be a good start for flattening that curve.
It might help but most of the world is still considered "in development", we need for that development to happen with sustainable energy sources, and for that it needs to be as simple and cheap to be harvested and used as it is for those countries to use fossil fuels today.
If that doesn't happen then these countries will use fossil fuels to develop, and the population peaking won't be of much help when those countries start emitting more per capita like many developed countries.
Ignore everything this guy states. Look at his comments, he is an eco terrorist at best who benefits and uses technology himself but then turns around and wants to sabotage human advancement and the use of any fossil fuels.
"I believe the only true hope is mass sabotage of fossil-fuel producing infrastructure."
There is no such thing as polluting substances, only an accumulation of those. The problem lies in the fact that our technological process graph has too many sinks leading to an accumulation of 'dead-end' by-products. There is almost never such occurrences in nature, and when it does (great oxygenation event), the system manages to circle it back into the process graph.
Contrast this with current ecological recommendations: they boil down to reducing the production rate of such substances, which can only asymptotically delay the looming apocalypse.
> There is almost never such occurrences in nature, and when it does (great oxygenation event), the system manages to circle it back into the process graph.
It is actually recent earth's biosphere with its many negative feedback loops which is the exception here. Earth could have turned into a Venus or Mars if conditions were just slightly different, and it almost did several times.
I visited China in 2014 and I have literally wondered out loud this morning whether air pollution has improved since then. I am gald to hear the answer is yes!
I've been visiting China every 1 to 3 years since 2014 and definitely in the last 4 years, on multiple visits, I've noticed that pollution is visibly lower. You can actually see the blue of the sky on most days. Everyone has noticed it. It's a massive change.
Yes. Some climate scientists believe that the unexpected increase in warming over the last couple of years is an unintended consequence of SO2 reduction.
The general quote from NASA climate scientists and others is that the recent years increase in warming is unexpected even after accounting for the reduction in marine fleet SO2 emmissions and the parallel increase in high atmosphere SO2 from a large volcanic eruption.
And cause health problems, acid rains and much more. It is not a solution.
With complex systems touching a variable impacts a lot of places, something that may become obvious in hindsight. Undoing how we triggered climate change, that is first drastically reducing emissions and then capturing the excess of greenhouse gases, looks like a less disruptive way to effectively solve the problem.
My prediction is that at some point in the next 50 years the problems of SO2 will be considered an acceptable tradeoff for the cooling. At least one major world government (or perhaps sufficiently wealthy oligarchs) will begin intentionally pumping SO2 into the atmosphere.
Readit News
However given the strong role SO2 can play in reducing global warming, and that there are even proposals to introduce more SO2 to the atmosphere to achieve the Paris objectives, like most things in our complex interconnected world it gets a bit more complex.
Of course one hopes there are better responses to the changing climate than reactively doubling down on polluting contaminants into the atmosphere when that has contributed to the current mess and we clearly have narrow and incomplete understandings of systemic intervention.
Dead Comment
Wait... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_annual_CO2_em...
It might help but most of the world is still considered "in development", we need for that development to happen with sustainable energy sources, and for that it needs to be as simple and cheap to be harvested and used as it is for those countries to use fossil fuels today.
If that doesn't happen then these countries will use fossil fuels to develop, and the population peaking won't be of much help when those countries start emitting more per capita like many developed countries.
"I believe the only true hope is mass sabotage of fossil-fuel producing infrastructure."
Terrorism talk should not be part of HN.
There is no such thing as polluting substances, only an accumulation of those. The problem lies in the fact that our technological process graph has too many sinks leading to an accumulation of 'dead-end' by-products. There is almost never such occurrences in nature, and when it does (great oxygenation event), the system manages to circle it back into the process graph.
Contrast this with current ecological recommendations: they boil down to reducing the production rate of such substances, which can only asymptotically delay the looming apocalypse.
It is actually recent earth's biosphere with its many negative feedback loops which is the exception here. Earth could have turned into a Venus or Mars if conditions were just slightly different, and it almost did several times.
With complex systems touching a variable impacts a lot of places, something that may become obvious in hindsight. Undoing how we triggered climate change, that is first drastically reducing emissions and then capturing the excess of greenhouse gases, looks like a less disruptive way to effectively solve the problem.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment