Oh, and the shipping industry emits roughly 1 Billion tons of CO2 per year, which ice-sailing eliminates… Pretty sure that helps the climate more than “protecting 5 miles of barren rock out of 500 miles, that grows grass for two months a year, and is covered in ice anyway for the whole remainder of the year—gotta keep that safe!”
Well, if the choice is between “Let glaciers melt and sea-levels rise, which destroys those Arctic environments, along with all the others” OR “cover just a 5 mile wide stretch of the most barren ranges, among thousands of miles of them—less than 1% of that region’s area , in order to ventilate heat into space when we freeze ice, reflect extra sunlight via our Mylar as well as the additional ice surface, and create ice reservoirs against desertification, because of late melt into the ground.” It’s one of those scenarios asking “would you sacrifice a single, old, talentless, obnoxious guy on a forum, in order to save the lives of thousands and create a safe environment for ecological hot spots on tropical islands?” I’d kick the geezer off that ice-shelf. And if we keep dragging our feet on climate change, we’ll have to consider proposals that make sacrifices, soon.
No. I’m pointing to the extreme disparity in costs of your trade-off. Sacrificing a percent of taiga to eliminate a large chunk of CO2 emissions is not “an overwhelming environmental loss that ensures impossibility.” You claim “always end up on ice due to ecological impacts.” I’m not sure Russia cares as much about their environment as you do, either. They already seem quite interested in that Arctic shipping-lane, already. Your claim of ‘impossibility’ doesn’t hold-up to the details.
Not sure how serious or technologically feasible your proposal is, but it would always end up… on ice due to ecological and environmental impacts.
Oh, and the shipping industry emits roughly 1 Billion tons of CO2 per year, which ice-sailing eliminates… Pretty sure that helps the climate more than “protecting 5 miles of barren rock out of 500 miles, that grows grass for two months a year, and is covered in ice anyway for the whole remainder of the year—gotta keep that safe!”
Well, if the choice is between “Let glaciers melt and sea-levels rise, which destroys those Arctic environments, along with all the others” OR “cover just a 5 mile wide stretch of the most barren ranges, among thousands of miles of them—less than 1% of that region’s area , in order to ventilate heat into space when we freeze ice, reflect extra sunlight via our Mylar as well as the additional ice surface, and create ice reservoirs against desertification, because of late melt into the ground.” It’s one of those scenarios asking “would you sacrifice a single, old, talentless, obnoxious guy on a forum, in order to save the lives of thousands and create a safe environment for ecological hot spots on tropical islands?” I’d kick the geezer off that ice-shelf. And if we keep dragging our feet on climate change, we’ll have to consider proposals that make sacrifices, soon.
was this meant as a personal attack or something? I’m confused.
No. I’m pointing to the extreme disparity in costs of your trade-off. Sacrificing a percent of taiga to eliminate a large chunk of CO2 emissions is not “an overwhelming environmental loss that ensures impossibility.” You claim “always end up on ice due to ecological impacts.” I’m not sure Russia cares as much about their environment as you do, either. They already seem quite interested in that Arctic shipping-lane, already. Your claim of ‘impossibility’ doesn’t hold-up to the details.