Re:Some progress on CO2 sequestration technologies
by the8472 on Sunday July 28, 2019 @10:09AM
(#20547609)
> generally boil down to 'you' need to suffer (in concrete ways, e.g. a gas tax, not farming a rain forest, etc.) for the (vague) benefit of other people.
That reads fairly one-sided. Let's flip it and say you have to cut back on some luxuries today so our descendants don't die by the millions at the end of the century.
Re:Some progress on CO2 sequestration technologies
by thereisnospork on Sunday July 28, 2019 @10:17PM
(#20551024)
It is one sided: its the view of the Brazilian logger who wants to cut down his rain forest. It takes a more credible argument than vague promises of '[his] decedents won't die by the millions' a century from now to dissuade him when his relatives live in favelas today[1].
[1] Which is exactly the sort of activity we 'first-worlders' have been benefiting from.
Exactly. To restate, not emitting CO2 will make people's lives worse[1] but most of the environmental proposals I see don't seem to realize the sheer unreasonableness of their propositions which generally boil down to 'you' need to suffer (in concrete ways, e.g. a gas tax, not farming a rain forest, etc.) for the (vague) benefit of other people.
[1] Given the current state of technology.
re. putting the cart in front of the horse, I agree, but if air-CO2 sequestration does hit 150$/tonne as (optimistically) projected that works out to be a few bucks per gallon of gas: The economist in me says the optimal solution is to tack that on to every gallon sold (and ear mark it).