Slashdot Mirror
'Moore's Law' For Carbon Would Defeat Global Warming (technologyreview.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: A streamlined set of goals for reducing carbon emissions could simplify the way nations approach the quest to reduce human impact on the planet. A group of European researchers have a refreshingly straightforward solution that they call a carbon law -- or, as the Guardian has coined it, a "Moore's law for carbon." The overarching goal is simple: globally, we must halve carbon dioxide emissions every decade. That's essentially it. The rule would ideally be applied "to all sectors and countries at all scales," and would encourage "bold action in the short term." Dramatic changes would naturally have to occur as a result -- from quick wins like carbon taxes and energy efficiency regulations, to longer-term policies like phasing out combustion-engine cars and carbon-neutral building regulations. If policy makers followed the carbon law, adoption of renewables would continue its current pace of doubling energy production every 5.5 years, and carbon dioxide sequestration technologies would need to ramp up in order for the the planet to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century, say the researchers. Along the way, coal use would end as soon as 2030 and oil use by 2040. There are, clearly, issues with the idea, not least being the prospect of convincing every nation to commit to such a vision. The very simplicity that makes the idea compelling can also be used as a point of criticism: Can such a basic rule ever hope to define practical ideas as to how to change the world's energy production and consumption? The study has been published in the journal Science.
Moores law for transistors works with roughly the same amount of investment each year. This doesn't work in many other areas. You can't double clean energy production every 5 years without doubling the investment.
It really doesn't take much to get published in Science these days, does it?
Moore's Law wasn't a goal someone set and then did.
It was merely an observation of a pace of technical advance.
The idea that you would propose something like this, as if the proposal itself was actually accomplishing something, is asinine.
-Styopa
See also: people of all races are the same, men are the same as women, taxation doesn't hurt business, Karl Marx was a good person.
Two can play that game.
Invalid and dishonest generalizations serve no good purpose.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Posts criticizing global warming are downvoted because this is a site for science geeks. A post criticizing natural selection will also get downvoted. Just because there isn't a (-1 dumb) option doesn't mean mods won't act like there is.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
An evangelist speaks from emotional fervor based on tradition. A climatologist speaks from disciplined scientific enquiry. Tell me, are you being paid to shitpost, or do you do it out of sheer paranoia?
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
It's more like "halve the emissions", not "halve the energy". See, it's about trying to generate electricity for us to use, while reducing the byproducts that are bad for the environment.
Glad I could clear that up for you, and thanks for your contribution to the debate.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
I'd rather eat meat than have 10 times the current population.
Yeah, which would you rather have, a nice juicy steak or 10 times the number of neighbors?