02-23-2023, 02:07 AM
(02-23-2023, 01:49 AM)Mav link Wrote:I agree there’s a risk that science will be used as a fig leaf for continued pollution. It’s a bit like the tobacco industry introducing filters and menthol (or getting behind vapes) to suggest they’re making tobacco safer to use. I wouldn’t want the fossil fuel industry to use CCS and other means to justify doing business as usual.
On the other hand, there have been some scientific advances or interventions that did help to make things safer. Banning CFCs has helped to replenish the ozone layer and introducing unleaded petrol has reduced the developmental damage inflicted by lead.
But the scientific consensus appears to be that even eliminating emissions totally wouldn’t allow us to stop the rise in global temperatures (and unless science can offer alternatives, that’s not going to happen). We need to eliminate carbon dioxide that’s already in the atmosphere and only science can make that happen. There are currently DAC (Direct Air Capture) projects that are trying to scale up those efforts: see this for example.
Science and technology are both morally neutral enterprises that serve centres of power. Scientists aren't pure either.
I guess the point I was making is that the fundamentally unsustainable lifestyle of those in the developed world in not really tied to technological choice. Whilst it makes some difference, I'm not sure that solar panels on the roof or everybody driving EV's will help all that much. All the alternatives to traditional energy sources have their own problems, and environmental issues that need to be sorted out. I would argue the climate and environmental issues are locked right into the very fabric and essence of the way we live.