> the cost of coal needs to come up ... Stripe is trying to reduce that $775.
Non-sequitur. And no, I believe that's a marginal rate.
> Assuming all energy comes from coal
all=>any, coal=>hydrocarbons
> All plants die and decay, returning carbon to the carbon cycle.
How do you think the fossil fuels got underground in the first place?
Okay, yeah, it's complicated, but the planet has sequestered carbon from volcanic eruptions over billions of years before anyone tried pumping it down a mine shaft. Really it's mostly done by clouds, which absorb CO2 into H2CO3 and then plankton build their shells out of it, and deposit it as lime at the bottom of the ocean. Land-based carbon also washes away as acid or gets buried or turned into ash by oxygen-poor heat from fires.
Now the whole problem we're concerned about is not exactly carbon, but global warming, which is caused firstly by low albedo, and secondly by greenhouse gas absorption of surface heat remissions.
The most significant source of albedo is clouds, as is the most significant source of carbon capture. So it's really too bad that we've been waging a global war on clouds. We seed clouds for aviation, for farming, for ski resorts, tourism, whatever; we hate clouds. Everybody does it.
It seems to me that I see less of them today than decades ago, but I don't know. (Okay, I just checked, and yes, this is true)
> we need to put carbon back
Sorry, but no, no, no. _We_ do not need to do anything. _We_ are not helping. Do you have any idea how much carbon emission it takes to build a sequestration plant? We need to do less of everything. Less driving, less building, less industry, and less buying junk you don't need, even if 1% is going to some feel-good slush fund to pump up revenues for someone's misguided eco-startup investments.
Non-sequitur. And no, I believe that's a marginal rate.
> Assuming all energy comes from coal
all=>any, coal=>hydrocarbons
> All plants die and decay, returning carbon to the carbon cycle.
How do you think the fossil fuels got underground in the first place?
Okay, yeah, it's complicated, but the planet has sequestered carbon from volcanic eruptions over billions of years before anyone tried pumping it down a mine shaft. Really it's mostly done by clouds, which absorb CO2 into H2CO3 and then plankton build their shells out of it, and deposit it as lime at the bottom of the ocean. Land-based carbon also washes away as acid or gets buried or turned into ash by oxygen-poor heat from fires.
Now the whole problem we're concerned about is not exactly carbon, but global warming, which is caused firstly by low albedo, and secondly by greenhouse gas absorption of surface heat remissions.
The most significant source of albedo is clouds, as is the most significant source of carbon capture. So it's really too bad that we've been waging a global war on clouds. We seed clouds for aviation, for farming, for ski resorts, tourism, whatever; we hate clouds. Everybody does it.
It seems to me that I see less of them today than decades ago, but I don't know. (Okay, I just checked, and yes, this is true)
> we need to put carbon back
Sorry, but no, no, no. _We_ do not need to do anything. _We_ are not helping. Do you have any idea how much carbon emission it takes to build a sequestration plant? We need to do less of everything. Less driving, less building, less industry, and less buying junk you don't need, even if 1% is going to some feel-good slush fund to pump up revenues for someone's misguided eco-startup investments.