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.
In a bit more detail:
How about less cars? More effective public transit is good for people and the climate.
Let's do away with golf lawns and pools for every house... Perhaps architecture can be adapted to suit the specific location instead of stamping the same stock photo "American house with garage that can fit 4 cars." Look at passive cooling and stuff. [Again, I'm talking about redefining comfort. Is a personal pool and large car and trimmed lawn really, honestly, what makes you comfortable? Or is it more a product of culture and advertising? You're absolutely free to believe either way, and I don't want anyone to force you to do anything.]
And honestly, we need to consoom less. Devices should not have a lifecycle of one year. You and I don't really need all these gadgets and trinkets, either. Let's stop buying random things
If you think this is a distraction or that it won't work because we can't get everyone to agree: Degrowth and permaculture requires honestly no critical mass. You can choose to buy things that last longer, and use them a bit more. Learn to fix things, etc. These are all nothing but straight benefits to you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day).
While I’m sympathetic to the idea of degrowth, people will not go along with it. Instead I think we should advocate for living in dense areas, eating a lot less meat, reducing waste, etc.
And that's far from being enough.
> While I’m sympathetic to the idea of degrowth
I think it's the first step. At some point you will realize that it is just not a choice. We will degrow anyway, because fossil fuels are not unlimited, and we can't reasonably replace them.
I am not in favour of degrowth because I find it romantic. I am in favour of degrowth because that's how we can control the fall. I'd rather have a hard landing than a complete crash.
Based on what? We already have optimistic signs in developed countries where emissions per capita have declined.
As others have said, no idea how you impose degrowth short of dictatorship
Based on the consensus on how much we need to cut our CO2 emissions, and on checking orders of magnitudes on "what we can do before degrowth" (which generally implies replacing fossil fuels with something else, which generally implies extrapolating numbers or hoping for non-existing technology).
> We already have optimistic signs in developed countries
It's too late to be optimistic unfortunately. We don't need to slightly reduce emissions per capita, we need to drastically cut them.
> As others have said, no idea how you impose degrowth short of dictatorship
Oh I agree with that (especially in the US). I think we are going towards global world instability, wars and famines (even in developed countries) in our lifetime. Doesn't mean I cannot wish we got reasonable for our own sake.
The only thing that can save us is controlled degrowth. Which is a very challenging problem. Yet too many are hoping for CO2 capture and miracle technology. Society will probably collapse, but that sucks.