Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(35,308 posts)
9. Seriously, it's a terrible idea.
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 07:19 PM
Mar 2023

The best idea, the easiest, the cleanest, and the only decent approach to climate change is to stop using dangerous fossil fuels, including dangerous fossil fuels used to power aircraft.

There is a technical solution to climate change, but it does not follow that it is one that is even close to being embraced.

If one reads IPCC reports, one can hear all about how so called "renewable energy" will help address climate change, all of it in the form of soothsaying. Same thing with IEA World Energy Outlooks, year after year, scenario after scenario. The scenario that always comes to pass boils down to doing nothing meaningful and avoiding the obvious.

But the numbers don't lie.

Here they are:

March 02: 422.49 ppm
March 01: 422.45 ppm
February 28: 422.88 ppm
February 27: 421.62 ppm
February 26: 421.23 ppm
Last Updated: March 3, 2023

Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2|Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2

Trillions of dollars later spent on this very, very, very bad reactionary idea, the rate of degradation of the atmosphere is accelerating.

By the way, I don't get my information from Wikipedia in general, although I sometimes for convenience post graphics from it. I read the primary scientific literature.

As it happens, I have spent a lot of time studying the chemistry of sulfuric acid because it is a key intermediate in the Sulfur Iodine cycle, a key fluid phased (potentially continuous) technology that suggests the feasibility, as opposed to the likelihood of saving the world. The biggest problem with the SI cycle, one which I believe is being and can be addressed, is that sulfuric acid eats away pretty much everything it touches, under special controlled conditions.

There's nothing "controlled" about ramping up the already problematic acidification of the world.

One of the things I note about discussions of climate change is all the "out there" approaches that will clearly make things worse, just as the fantasies that solar and wind energy would save the day made things worse faster than they were worsening before we embraced that one. Acidifying the planet because we can't give up fossil fuels falls squarely in that category:

Worse, faster.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Moondust for mitigating c...»Reply #9