> Someone drunk should stop drinking alcohol in the first place
but if removing alcohol is possible (and cheap), and the person _wants_ to be drunk, then they should be allowed to do so. Rather than saying that one should reduce their alcohol intake.
Just like carbon removal, removing alcohol from blood is much more difficult (and/or expensive) than to stop drinking.
It's an addiction so maybe we should stop selling alcohol to drunk people who can't help but put their life at risk. If your drunk friends says "but I'll find a way to get sober", we can agree to help them with that once they stop drinking.
Also, wrt to climate change: people won't want carbon but energy and we have an alternative to fossil fuels so replace them with renewable sources as much as possible and once we've done our best, finally talk about all the CO2 we failed to save. It's all about priorities because of the time carbon remains in the atmosphere and the feedback loops at play.
> Just like carbon removal, removing alcohol from blood is much more difficult (and/or expensive) than to stop drinking
How do you figure? I can't foresee a world in which a human being's life is carbon neutral. So if we have an exponentially growing global population, how does carbon reduction not eventually lead to population control?
That are projections with a very unclear reasoning. It is thought that most of the world will follow Europe in population decline, but even North America isn't there yet. And if the reason is something temporary, like current western culture, then it will vanish at some point, leading to more exponential growth again.
The reason is that middle class life is insanely expensive, while poverty is by necessity not.
If you’re living in poverty, a kid doesn’t impact your socioeconomic status in such a profound way, and in rural places they can be an economic benefit.
For many middle class people a single child would drive them into poverty.
Carbon removal will eventually be necessary to reach carbon neutrality. We're very very far from the point where it's more economical to invest in carbon removal than to lower emissions.
> We're very very far from the point where it's more economical to invest in carbon removal than to lower emissions.
depends on what you mean by lower emissions.
Transitioning to more renewable sources is certainly a good way to invest resources, but it's not mutually exclusive to also consider carbon capture.
What is _not_ possible is for people to reduce their consumption. I, and many others, will not be willingly sacrificing the high quality of life that is the result of using a lot of energy. If people expect that climate change is to be solved by having everyone reduce their consumption, then that train of thought is doomed to fail.
By "lower emissions" I mean investing money into energy sources that don't emit CO2, into better insulation for houses, into low carbon modes of transport. This will naturally lead to less energy use, because thermal power plants are not very efficient, burning oil for heat is not very efficient (compared to a heat pump), and burning oil to move a car is not very efficient (compared to a BEV, or a train). Doing something about emissions from agriculture is a bit more difficult. Perhaps that's an area where we'll need carbon capture to reach neutrality.
I do not mean moving back to a pre-industrial lifestyle.
.svg){kind=link}
but if removing alcohol is possible (and cheap), and the person _wants_ to be drunk, then they should be allowed to do so. Rather than saying that one should reduce their alcohol intake.