We make a lot of sausage in meetings. Brainstorm ideas and figure out what the challenges will be. Having all five or six people there at once is much more efficient than taking back the forth to each one individually.

There are status update meetings, but those are so other people know what you’re doing so if it effects them they can work with it.

Who is we? Russia? Are you saying the petrol state Russia is less responsible for global warming than European countries? And how are you counting China, including them as settled from Europe somehow?

The death star trench run briefing was one of the first computer generated sequences in a movie.

But as for CGI good or CGI bad, you don’t notice the good CGI. But models are definitely more fun to look at behind the scenes.

Relevant no CGI is just invisible cgi https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo

These models were pioneers of visual effects. I think they were one of first to use tracking shots for minis that replicated the full scale moves. They also created the way of moving the camera just enough during an exposure to give it realistic motion blur.

Coffee costs a lot more than water

Until you miss one…

I wonder if it had many direction notes in it. If so, that’d be really interesting to see.

We’ve only been pumping out co2 for a hundred or two years. We can’t keep doing that and expect the old balance to hold up.

It might be included in carbon capture and sequestration.

Because they’re only alive and growing till they die and rot. Sometimes trees do both at the same time, rot from the inside out. You can’t just plant trees for carbon capture, you also need to deal with how to permanently sequester the carbon.

Hmm actually looks like this is only the US. The 5gt is from 2021 when it was published. Yeah that should have been more clear.

It doesn’t look like you can find an optimal mix of methods for a particular reduction though.

Yes, it’s cost savings to install solar over continue with coal for example.

This one?

The y axis is the global co2 emissions. Where are you getting that it isn’t?

Looks to be like the x axis is $/ton? If the original figure is better, could you link it so I can replace the pic?

You can only reduce so much carbon going to solar or EVs. As you reduce the amount of carbon emissions (the y axis) the methods to keep reducing carbon cost more. (the x axis)

Okay, since this is referring to the global co2 emissions, global scale makes sense.

I think why they’re presenting them as cumulative is because you want all the reduction methods to add to net carbon negative.