zlacker

>>Brajes+(OP)
I'm starting to wonder whether the conventional wisdom of reducing carbon emissions in favour of more electricalisation is really solving the actual problem. As is often pointed out on HN, electrical cars are substantially heavier than their fossil fueled alternatives, and generate other pollution along the way. Furthermore, we're digging our lithium brines from the environment, without really understanding what all this lithium will do once it's leached out into the environment or what impact the mines themselves will have.

With the recent advances of turning CO2 into other substances, such as propane, should we be focusing more on closing the carbon cycle and simply be producing fossil fuels from the waste products of yesteryear?

Naively, it feels like we understand C, O and H, better than we understand some of the rare metals we're now introducing in the name of climate change.

>>alexch+Ei
I have quit worrying about it. We have a solution: nuclear power base load + wind/solar secondary. I will vote for candidates who promote that, otherwise there is nothing I can do, I've reduced my foot print quite a bit over the years and will stick to that. Otherwise I guess we're doomed. I'm not gonna obsess over it with a doom dashboard/countdown

>>lost_t+A91
> We have a solution: nuclear power base load + wind/solar secondary.

Which is not enough. We need nuclear + wind/solar + degrowth. Because those energies don't remotely replace fossil fuels.

Still, that is a solution (at least that's the less bad I see). We just need to accept it.