Nobody in the climate community and certainly nobody involved in OAE is asking that methodology to reach 10 billion tons a year. That is a ridiculous ask. There are no methods that can reach 10 billion tons per year. Our hope is, that a handful of methods combined can reach 10 billion. Some will contribute more than others, some will be cheaper than others. Most people abandon the notion of a silver bullet in favor of a blended set of solutions.
I just don't understand how, in a world of hard budget constraints, we're going to purposefully go forward with a mix of very expensive and reasonably priced methods. Why would you do that?
If you ran a cancer ward, and you had 100 sick kids, and a budget that can cover all of them with drug A, or 20 of them with Drug B, why on earth would you say "ok, we'll split the budget between the two and treat 60 of them: 50 with Drug A and 10 with Drug B?"
The disconnect you're having with your cancer ward analogy is that the cancer ward is one entity so budget decisions are easy and unified. Here, there is no single entity or unified control over all spending. And there is no single drug that works on all cancers, so you need a variety of treatments.
The other disconnect you're having is you're being paid to promote a single method (OIF) so naturally you want to compare and contrast. That isn't a bad thing. Just don't overly criticize those communities that are actually your allies (and if you don't understand they are your allies, then you should have a deep think on who are the enemies and allies in the climate fight). You're not here to make all the world's decisions, thankfully. Try to have a more Buddhist approach. You can lift up your favorite climate mitigations without tearing anyone else down. You're on the same side.
You are also missing some key reasons why OAE is a good drug in the cancer ward for some patients (not all cancers are the same, just like not all climate effects are the same).
Is this... the method that can also be achieved by blowing up a nuke under the ocean floor off Antarctica every year or so?
I'm not convinced that $100/ton is unsustainable - isn't global climate policy spend already in the half trillion a year range? Imagine not mandating EVs at a few thousand dollars per ton abated or what have you and instead spending 10x less
Nobody in the climate community and certainly nobody involved in OAE is asking that methodology to reach 10 billion tons a year. That is a ridiculous ask. There are no methods that can reach 10 billion tons per year. Our hope is, that a handful of methods combined can reach 10 billion. Some will contribute more than others, some will be cheaper than others. Most people abandon the notion of a silver bullet in favor of a blended set of solutions.
I just don't understand how, in a world of hard budget constraints, we're going to purposefully go forward with a mix of very expensive and reasonably priced methods. Why would you do that?
If you ran a cancer ward, and you had 100 sick kids, and a budget that can cover all of them with drug A, or 20 of them with Drug B, why on earth would you say "ok, we'll split the budget between the two and treat 60 of them: 50 with Drug A and 10 with Drug B?"
That just fundamentally makes no sense to me.
The disconnect you're having with your cancer ward analogy is that the cancer ward is one entity so budget decisions are easy and unified. Here, there is no single entity or unified control over all spending. And there is no single drug that works on all cancers, so you need a variety of treatments.
The other disconnect you're having is you're being paid to promote a single method (OIF) so naturally you want to compare and contrast. That isn't a bad thing. Just don't overly criticize those communities that are actually your allies (and if you don't understand they are your allies, then you should have a deep think on who are the enemies and allies in the climate fight). You're not here to make all the world's decisions, thankfully. Try to have a more Buddhist approach. You can lift up your favorite climate mitigations without tearing anyone else down. You're on the same side.
You are also missing some key reasons why OAE is a good drug in the cancer ward for some patients (not all cancers are the same, just like not all climate effects are the same).
I love that picture!
Is this... the method that can also be achieved by blowing up a nuke under the ocean floor off Antarctica every year or so?
I'm not convinced that $100/ton is unsustainable - isn't global climate policy spend already in the half trillion a year range? Imagine not mandating EVs at a few thousand dollars per ton abated or what have you and instead spending 10x less
But of course $10/ton is better
I’m pretty sure that nuke paper was a kind of joke/troll thing, but yeah!