 |
|
If you are seriously asking this question, Ill explain.
Posted on: March 30, 2017 at 14:03:12 CT
Badird MU
Posts:
8826
Member For:
9.60 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
The usage of carbon-based fuels has a finite timeline. And even then, carbon-neutral energy will take over before the end of that timeline. Carbon neutral fuels would be algae biofuels, plant biofuels, etc.
For instance, lets pretend cold fusion is miraculously invented 40 years from now and batteries have advanced to the point where using carbon based fuels is no longer necessary. Now, we will not be using carbon at all and the natural sequestration of atmospheric CO2 brings us back into normal levels.
Lets pretend that cold fusion is never invented. But battery technology has come a long way in the past 10 years and the demand for it will continue to drive battery technology forward. If we replaced all power plants with nuclear, wind, solar, and all cars with batteries, we (again) are carbon neutral.
By not working or trying to limit CO2 emissions, we are reducing the timeline before we no longer have time to fix the problem. If in 55 years, as you said, we reach the irreversible temps at which we cannot fix the problem we have started, why would you want to SPEED that timeline from 55 years to 50 years, or 40 years?
It will take longer than 50 years to eliminate hydrocarbon use. Will it take longer than 60? 70? We need to do everything we can to give ourselves enough time to fix this problem, and that starts with doing everything we can to reduce emissions NOW.
Edited by Badird at 14:04:01 on 03/30/17
For instance, lets pretend cold fusion is miraculously invented 40 years from now and batteries have advanced to the point where using carbon based fuels is no longer necessary. Now, we will not be using carbon at all and the natural sequestration of atmospheric CO2 brings us back into normal levels.
Lets pretend that cold fusion is never invented. But battery technology has come a long way in the past 10 years and the demand for it will continue to drive battery technology forward. If we replaced all power plants with nuclear, wind, solar, and all cars with batteries, we (again) are carbon neutral.
By not working or trying to limit CO2 emissions, we are reducing the timeline before we no longer have time to fix the problem. If in 55 years, as you said, we reach the irreversible temps at which we cannot fix the problem we have started, why would you want to SPEED that timeline from 55 years to 50 years, or 40 years?
It will take longer than 50 years to eliminate hydrocarbon use. Will it take longer than 60? 70? We need to do everything we can to give ourselves enough time to fix this problem, and that starts with doing everything we can to reduce emissions NOW.
Edited by Badird at 14:04:01 on 03/30/17
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
If you are seriously asking this question, Ill explain. - Badird MU - 3/30 14:03:12