" Because most of our economy is based directly or indirectly on activities that release CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases."
Yes.
"Changing that is going to be a massive disruption."
No. Much of the activities you mention are electric generation. There are a lot of alternatives that either don't emit CO2 or are carbon neutral. And they can be done without massive disruptions.
"I was being generous assuming that a quick change around would only cost us 10% of the additional wealth generated by current economic growth per year."
No you aren't. You are making unwarranted assumptions.
" Not in terms of it being a more efficient solution that something like slashing CO2 emissions in a decade."
Again, your assumptions are flawed. A lens such as described, would give time to implement a smooth transition.
So, even if a decade were the critical time, and that isn't a universally accepted figure by any means, it would give some breathing room.
So to speak.
"Some people have proposed slashing CO2 output within a generation or even within a decade. "
Yes. Some. Not most. Not all. Interesting that you pick the shortest period, pick some worst cases as to costs, and then announce that the costs are too high.
That is cherry picking.
"Well you did mention the lens idea, but I'm not sure how much you are behind it, or if you have any other ideas that you think that maybe we should do."
The lens idea is one. Heck, it is worth doing even if we weren't facing global warming. Make it adjustable, and with a fresnel lens that is easy, and it would be handy to fine tune global climate, possibly relieving droughts and other things.
Going carbon neutral with biofuels, nuclear power, investing in a Moon base for solar power satellites and He3 recovery for fusion, etc. |
