fungussa
fungussa t1_irt0c6p wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in The emerging climate tech sector will enjoy an 8.8 % growth rate over the next five years: tech companies that remove/reduce CO₂ emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4tn by 2027 by climeworks
No. You're just denying the existential risk from the continued burning of fossil fuels.
> JPMorgan Warns of Climate as a Threat to ‘Human Life as We Know It’
fungussa t1_irsxkk4 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in The emerging climate tech sector will enjoy an 8.8 % growth rate over the next five years: tech companies that remove/reduce CO₂ emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4tn by 2027 by climeworks
It's low, on both counts. But all environmental impacts from renewable tech is entirely irrelevant when one considers that the continued use of fossil fuels risks the collapse of modern civilisation.
fungussa t1_irsm3q8 wrote
Reply to comment by climeworks in The emerging climate tech sector will enjoy an 8.8 % growth rate over the next five years: tech companies that remove/reduce CO₂ emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4tn by 2027 by climeworks
Do you have an idea how much the cost, of removing of a tonne of atmospheric CO2, will reduce in the next 5 or 10 years?
fungussa t1_irslsjl wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in The emerging climate tech sector will enjoy an 8.8 % growth rate over the next five years: tech companies that remove/reduce CO₂ emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4tn by 2027 by climeworks
Not at all. Tech has already been developed to fully recycle lithium and solar tech is being developed that won't use any toxic / rare materials. Though more importantly, unlike fossil fuels, renewable tech is not undermining the Earth's capacity to sustain life.
fungussa t1_is19lof wrote
Reply to ‘We’ve Never Seen Anything Like This Before:’ Black Hole Spews Out Material Years After Shredding Star by mossadnik
Isn't a black hole only able to emit Hawking radiation and not able to eject matter?
EDIT: I've just seen this comment, by the paper's lead author:
> What we think happened is this material was in an accretion disc surrounding the black hole after it was unbound. In 20% of cases you then see a radio outflow at the part where it’s torn apart, but in this case we have really good radio limits that this didn’t happen then (ie, didn’t see anything). Then after ~750 days for whatever reason this outflow began…