79
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by Lwaxana@startrek.website to c/science@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

It does not make sense. Like replacing the light on your oven with an LED instead of the massive flood lights lighting up your castle. Look at the MAC diagram here to see what the low hanging fruits are and which fruits are so high up that no ladder reaches them.

[-] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

You mean we should just cut emissions and not try to remove CO2? Or am I missing something in the article?

I don't think we can do enough off that list to make enough difference. And we're already hitting positive feedback cycles so we need some way to remove CO2. I doubt either of those things will happen, but theoretically we need both now.

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You have a finite amount of resources. Your want to reduce/limit global warming add much as possible. So you need to spend the resources as effective as possible, not in applications that cost 10x as much for the same effect.

this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
79 points (95.4% liked)

science

14594 readers
579 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS