CLIMATE REMEDIATION GENERAL

We can stop ocean acidification by dumping baking soda into the ocean.

File: pteropods_68f57084-4f0d-45d2-a3e9-12289088d801.png (4MB, 1663x2250px)

4MB, 1663x2250px

only self bump

Remember, human populations that depend on seafood are at risk.

genetically modify a new eco system

>>8652222
The lack of discipline isn't a discipline.

No real solution that can solve every single crisis. Take away climate change and humans are still over-fishing globally, humans are still dumping plastic wastes into the oceans causing massive gyres of tiny, mm to cm length plastics that stay there forever, trapped the the gyre. Humans are still burning forests down to make way for industries like cattle and palm oil. In general there's just too many people too, and the most vulnerable regions to climate change, like Africa, are growing exponentially.

Maybe stratospheric aerosols could actually cool the Earth's temperature, but widespread geoengineering on such a large scale could have feedbacks that we don't truly understand, therefore it's too risky.

File: qt314.jpg (64KB, 1400x934px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1400x934px

>>8652229
You see, pteropods are nektonic gastropods that build shell material (CaCO3) by collecting carbonate ions dissolved in the surrounding ocean water. They play a vital role in in marine food webs. As ocean acidification progresses, pteropod shells have, on average, become smaller, thinner and more irregular.

File: the choice.png (1MB, 1174x794px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1174x794px

>>8652238
This is why I imagine the future looking like The Road. When competition for resources boils over, civilization will go out in an atomic fireball, doubled-over sucking our own dicks.

Problems on Earth ought to be addressed, but the survival of our species depends on getting off this rock asap.

>>8652216
CO2 air capture may become more viable with time as the technology improves. It's still such a young field.

The challenge is what to do with all the CO2 after it's captured, and also to make sure we don't get so complacent that we end up using it as an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels.

>>8652255
Getting off this rock to go where? Mars? That's literally the only option in our solar system that we can remotely survive on, and we don't even know if we can in the long term due to lack of a magnetic field, lack of productive soils, and inability to truly survive on the surface except inside domed habitats.

Earth is the only real home we have, and we are fucking it up so badly it may lead to our own extinction. Shit like this is probably why the Fermi paradox is a reality. Species just don't survive long enough to become interstellar, they do stupid shit that causes their own extinction.

File: e0754214069e1fa72a08263b2160626994e55c825b2e8f7f8209b83382a92eb5.jpg (170KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 650x650px

ECO-STALINISM

Tenets of Stalinism:
>massive public infrastructure projects
>rapid technological development
>nuclear energy, dams, etc
>forced population transfer
>killing, imprisoning, or re-educating the reactionaries and the ruling class
>food rations
>land reform
>massive war machine

Literally every single one of these points is going to be needed to deal with global warming this century. We'll need huge infrastructure spending to put us on clean energy, sustainable transport, insulated homes, and so on. Not to mention massive levees and water management projects to prevent important cities from getting swamped. We'll need a massive state-managed relocation program to get people out of danger areas and put up sea barriers, as well as to deal with millions of refugees. All of the oil company CEOs, all the conservative pundits, the anti-nuclear hippies, and so on will have to disappear. Food and water rationing will be required to prevent mass starvation, and new farmlands will have to be perpetually seized as the arable land region changes. We'll have to invade countries that refuse to move to sustainable energy and green living.

I'm not a tankie, but when I look at the reality of climate change… the droughts and floods, the famine and war it will cause… The only logical solution I can see is a brutal, authoritarian ecological dictatorship. I am for Eco-Stalinism.

>>8652216
Easy, just STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS. It's not that hard.

>>8654263
Something good about climate change after all, this is what wet dreams are made of.

File: 5ebe842dd0e6d75291e33cd7a3e9af4b643bb0215ae56bfd7ff6c5f443013fc4.jpg (34KB, 551x416px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 551x416px

>>8654263
>>8654295
It's no coincidence that Cuba, a Marxist-Leninist country, is the ONLY country that has both a high standard of living and a sustainable environmental impact. They are the world's first post-oil economy, and they are already relocating entire villages to plan ahead for sea level rise. Watch this documentary to see how far ahead they are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99WCn_nFSAY

>>8652238
>still burning forests down
I thought they were now regrowing faster with all the strict rules about replanting and the extra CO2 in the atmosphere making plant life healthier

Or did I hear wrong

>>8654266
retard spotted

Imagine you and all your neighbors are urinating in the local well. You wise up and realize that eventually the water you draw from the well is going to start tasting like piss. The obvious solution is for you and all your neighbors to start processing your urine and re-drinking it. The intractable problems you face are:
1) Some of your neighbors cannot afford a pee-processor
2) Some of your neighbors refuse to stop pissing in the well
3) You cannot coerce your neighbors to stop pissing in the well

Saying "just stop burning fossil fuels" is like telling your obese pregnant mother to stop buying food. Sure, she's ugly. But she's not going to get less ugly. The world needs energy. In a decade it will need more energy than is currently supplied. You need to build more power plants, not shut down existing ones.

How about you STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS?

bump, this is one of the most vital questions of our time.

>>8654574

maybe she needs to eat less?

>>8654145
There is zero chance that it will ever be more cost effective than not burning fossil fuels in the first place

>>8652216
what about not burning fossil fuels

>>8654145
Carbon capture is an absolute joke. 'Clean' coal is more expensive than nuclear power. Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere is even more expensive. The scale at which carbon capture must be done is ridiculous

the only remediation is acceleration. shit needs to hit the fan or else no one will ever give a shit. in fact even after shit hits the fan, people will still not give a shit. people won't give a shit until people close to them are effected. we need global catastrophe asap!

Release certain gas into the atmosphere to repel radiation

Create Halo like structure to shield from rays

Create orbital stations to hold life

>>8658303
Wishful thinking.

File: blowme.jpg (27KB, 485x485px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 485x485px

>>8654263
If the American middle class hadn't gotten schlonged, too many people would be able to buy these.

File: download.jpg (13KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 251x201px

>>8654145
I'm a proponent of this approach.

Maybe we could bioengineer algae or use artificial metabolomics to fix carbon from the atmosphere and then use the carbon to synthesize graphene, nanotubes, diamond.

Imagine diamond as a building material and graphene/nanotubes in everyday life (super strong materials, new age electronics).

File: 1476493011826.png (73KB, 554x400px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 554x400px

Ok ok faggots hear this up
IRON FERTILIZATION

>>8659130
I don't even see why we need to wait for this future tech. Find a plant like bamboo that grows fast, cover huge swaths in it to suck up CO2, and then bury it all and don't let anyone dig it back up.

>>8652216
I was originally really against this but it might actually be a good option. As long as we did it out in the open ocean.

>>8659137
The economics of that sort of thing are a little tricky. Carbon credits exist already as a voluntary business but there are some debates on how one should go about doing this. For example, if a stand of forest put aside for carbon sequestration were to burn down, who pays for it?

Then there's the question of whether it's truly analogous to leaving fossil fuels in the ground in the first place.

Also they wouldn't bury it, I'm hazy as to why not but I'm sure the impacts exceed the benefit once you start digging and burying on that scale.

>>8659133
>>8659140
Whoops

File: where-do-you-think-we-are.jpg (59KB, 570x363px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 570x363px

>>8659150
This. The carbon we've unleashed was sequestered in the geosphere.

>>8654190
Maybe it's a little early. Maybe the time is not quite yet, but those other worlds promising untold opportunities beckon.

>>8652216
Kill most of the humans

Stop the burning of hydrocarbons.

>>8654145
Air capture of CO2 requires huge amounts of energy. "Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions" calculated it would take 156 exajoules per year to power direct atmospheric capture. This is 29% of the energy use in 2013.

>>8659130
This will require a huge area.

Second, we don't use construction materials on the scale that we emit CO2.

"A heavy reliance on
NETs{negative emissions technology} in the future, if used as a means to allow continued use of fossil fuels in the present, is
extremely risky since our ability to stabilise the climate at <2°C declines as cumulative emissions increase. A failure of NETs to deliver expected mitigation in the future, due to any combination of biophysical and economic limits examined here, leaves us with no “Plan B”. Since this study
shows that there is there is no NET, or combination of NETs, available now that could be implemented to meet the <2ᵒC target without significant impact on either land, energy, water, nutrient,
albedo or cost, “Plan A” must be to reduce GHG emissions aggressively now."

TL; DR we need to stop burning hydrocarbons, anything else is wishful thinking.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n1/full/nclimate2870.html

>>8659600
>...continued use of fossil fuels in the present

We don't necessarily have to take that approach, we could use negative emissions to supplement our journey to sustainability.

That doesn't necessarily mean completely cut out fossil fuels either.

>>8659600
>Air capture of CO2 requires huge amounts of energy. "Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions" calculated it would take 156 exajoules per year to power direct atmospheric capture. This is 29% of the energy use in 2013.
Thanks for that citation, I've been trying to find something similar myself and couldn't. I have calculated it would take something on the order of 15GJ/ton to get from atmospheric CO2 to graphite, so I'm really curious if I'm anywhere near correct.