if the models are accurate we don't have time for some incremental strategy focusing on something mostly irrelevant
-
-
Replying to @Algorithmexist @paulgb
think that’s pretty mistaken, you probably need more efficient short run transport in every case
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong @paulgb
we need the equivalent of ~100M years of sunlight in energy in the next 100 years because carbon prefers being with oxygen; bicycles are irrelevant
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Algorithmexist @paulgb
that’s basically totally wrong. the conversion ratio of those 100mm years of sunlight into fossil fuels is incredibly low, and transport is one of the main reasons dense cities are far more efficient than suburbs and car oriented metropolitan areas
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanielleFong @paulgb
sure, a 1-1 ratio is hyperbole, but 10% of this is still on the order of the efficiency of cities being completely irrelevant for solving the acute problem and it's probably distracting from the real problem at the same time
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Algorithmexist @DanielleFong
Don’t get me wrong, I support more extreme measures. It’s just that I’m pessimistic about their chances, if they involve people making even bigger sacrifices than “let people feel safe biking”, which is politically popular in dense cities already. What do you propose instead?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @paulgb @DanielleFong
i'm all for helping people feel safe biking & more efficient cities, i just think framing this as combatting climate change is counter productive the only way i can see us getting energy on the order needed with today's technology is *a lot* of nuclear fission
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @DanielleFong @paulgb
it isn't intuitive to me how we could yield some non-trivial factor of 100M years of sunlight from 100 years of sunlight, could you elaborate?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Algorithmexist @paulgb
plants start at low percentage points of efficiency in turning energy into embodied carbon, like 3%. they deposit only a tiny fraction of the incident solar energy as carbon about 0.3% maximum in coal fields. this is cut by a factor of about 7-10 in the 1st transformation to coal
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
about 1% of this end up being generated petroleum, and like 0.01% of the original carbonis trapped, and like 1-10% of *that* is accessible and accessed. nature just isn’t a remotely efficient solar to oil chemical plantpic.twitter.com/1AMUvRM0l4
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
