@stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to Solarpunk technology@slrpnk.net • 10 months agoIt's Time to Engineer the Sky: Global warming is so rampant that some scientists say we should begin altering the stratosphere to block sunlight, even if it jeopardizes rain and crops | SciAmwww.scientificamerican.comexternal-linkmessage-square57fedilinkarrow-up196
arrow-up196external-linkIt's Time to Engineer the Sky: Global warming is so rampant that some scientists say we should begin altering the stratosphere to block sunlight, even if it jeopardizes rain and crops | SciAmwww.scientificamerican.com@stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to Solarpunk technology@slrpnk.net • 10 months agomessage-square57fedilink
minus-squarebioemerllinkfedilink1•9 months ago It doesn’t matter if you don’t give a shit; if it means suffering because they cannot sustain themselves now, they are not going to do it. I’d say bring able to trade with one of the biggest nations in the world is a pretty darn good incentive to implement a carbon tax of their own. You understand your idea of sustaining themselves is burning more carbon and letting their needs undercut our emissions reduction. This is a net loss. Your time to try this passed by 30 years ago. Give up your silly Rube Goldberg contraptions and start looking for real, direct solutions. Says the person whose “simple” solution involves a far far more disruptive answer whose unexpected consequences will far surpass a tax.
minus-squareSolar BearlinkfedilinkEnglish1•9 months ago I’d say bring able to trade with one of the biggest nations in the world is a pretty darn good incentive to implement a carbon tax of their own. What trade? You told them to levy hefty import taxes on everything. You’ve killed most trade. You understand your idea of sustaining themselves is burning more carbon and letting their needs undercut our emissions reduction. This is a net loss. I want a collective effort to directly end carbon emissions. You just want to make it more expensive.
I’d say bring able to trade with one of the biggest nations in the world is a pretty darn good incentive to implement a carbon tax of their own.
You understand your idea of sustaining themselves is burning more carbon and letting their needs undercut our emissions reduction. This is a net loss.
Says the person whose “simple” solution involves a far far more disruptive answer whose unexpected consequences will far surpass a tax.
What trade? You told them to levy hefty import taxes on everything. You’ve killed most trade.
I want a collective effort to directly end carbon emissions. You just want to make it more expensive.