Computer simulations reveal that spraying sea salt aerosols may keep global temperatures near 2020 levels as air pollution falls—but may also redraw regional weather patterns.
Or we could do something that has better long term effects, get rid of the rich, the owners of oil companies, owners of lumberyards, basically all the companies that destroy and pollute our planet and we’ll see improvement within a year instead of whatever this bandaid bullshit they’ve come up with.
I wouldn’t heap lumber in with that list. They can be local, sustainable building materials. Also, trees just aren’t a great carbon capture. It’s when you pull carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for thousands of years and put it in the air that you create the problem.
Because if you read the article you would know that this only works to suppress another degree of global warming that is looming over our heads, one that will happen if and when we stop polluting the planet.
At worst, we could use this to smear out the effects of climate change to allow ecosystems a little more time to adapt. At best, carbon capture becomes viable at some point in the next thousand years and we can gradually stop spraying sea salt while reducing atmospheric CO2 to prevent most of the damage that extra degree would have caused.
(also, plants are the best construction material we have; lumber yards are cool even if the owners aren’t).
Maybe we could try some sequestration, too. But only after we stopped flying and consuming like vultures and took the money from the rich.
++ Its equally important to stop polluting the seas with our garbage, reducing CO2 won’t help anything if it’s the only thing we do.
Or we could do something that has better long term effects, get rid of the rich, the owners of oil companies, owners of lumberyards, basically all the companies that destroy and pollute our planet and we’ll see improvement within a year instead of whatever this bandaid bullshit they’ve come up with.
Nope, its salty rainwater for you.
I wouldn’t heap lumber in with that list. They can be local, sustainable building materials. Also, trees just aren’t a great carbon capture. It’s when you pull carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for thousands of years and put it in the air that you create the problem.
Both? Both is good.
Because if you read the article you would know that this only works to suppress another degree of global warming that is looming over our heads, one that will happen if and when we stop polluting the planet.
At worst, we could use this to smear out the effects of climate change to allow ecosystems a little more time to adapt. At best, carbon capture becomes viable at some point in the next thousand years and we can gradually stop spraying sea salt while reducing atmospheric CO2 to prevent most of the damage that extra degree would have caused.
(also, plants are the best construction material we have; lumber yards are cool even if the owners aren’t).
Maybe we could try some sequestration, too. But only after we stopped flying and consuming like vultures and took the money from the rich. ++ Its equally important to stop polluting the seas with our garbage, reducing CO2 won’t help anything if it’s the only thing we do.