There is carbon capture, but most importantly, there is promising tech to increase atmospheric albedo to reduce temperatures, the problem obviously is that it has to be deployed in a worldwide scale.
The energy is not the problem. The technologies are inefficient. They take a long time to get carbon neutral (to capture enough carbon to make up for the manufacturing process) so scaling is a problem.
I’m not trying to be downer. Just stating things as they are.
There is carbon capture, but most importantly, there is promising tech to increase atmospheric albedo to reduce temperatures, the problem obviously is that it has to be deployed in a worldwide scale.
See geoengineering.
I’m aware of carbon capture prototypes. All of them are very inefficient.
That’s why I talk about projects increasing albedo than carbon capture.
I have not looked in to that one so I can’t comment on it.
Far more realistic on my opinion, a small, slight, “nuclear winter” of sorts to offset the warming.
Obviously without nukes, but liberating material into the atmosphere to get said effect.
Good thing we can have so much cheap abundant excess energy that at times it’s actually a problem for the grid!
The energy is not the problem. The technologies are inefficient. They take a long time to get carbon neutral (to capture enough carbon to make up for the manufacturing process) so scaling is a problem.
I’m not trying to be downer. Just stating things as they are.