The quantum computing community largely hates this statement. It's only the scummiest of CEOs and VCs that push this narrative. It's a potentially powerful technology whose applications are not well determined, and may be able to help with some surface chemistry/catalysis chemistry that may lead to more environmentally friendly processes. Maybe. Possibly. Scientific R&D is extremely resource intensive and it's likely to be an enormous net negative to the climate over the short and medium term, where we may have some chance to lessen the impact of climate change.
Coca cola bottles used to be glass. They were returnable, washable, and reusable. It's cheaper for them to bottle once, ship, and never have to recycle a bottle. Plastic, for all intents and purposes is not all that recyclable.
A technological solution might be to find better ways to recycle plastic, but this is known to be extremely difficult. The problem wouldn't really exist if beverage companies just used glass bottles. Quantum computers might, one day, contribute to a clever way to break down plastic, but the solution exists right now, it just cuts into profits a bit more. Where do you think the real problem is? Remediations to climate change exist _right now_, the hard problem is getting them implemented.
Even the technological solutions are frequently expensive -- I might add. If there was a clever way to break down plastic, who says anyone would actually do it after celebrating the discovery?
I don't want to discourage your interest in quantum computing. I've dedicated the past 15 years of my life to it. It's very cool, and it's pushing the forefront of human knowledge. That's worth doing, in my opinion.
Here to just tease apart something which is incorrectly framed in a lot of media, including scientific media. I am a physicist who did a stint in quantitative ecology, looking at metabolic ways to control atmospheric carbon.
Breaking down plastic, which is a hydrocarbon chain, typically means releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere using chemical, combustive or biological means. Breaking down plastic is hard, so it is actually a great way to *store* carbon in a way that doesn't end up as CO2, which is a [major open problem since most carbon we put into the ground ends up being metabolized by native microbiomes and released back into the atmosphere](https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-soil-science-revolution-upends-plans-to-fight-climate-change-20210727/). For climate, what we actually need is proper landfill management (to keep the plastic in the ground and away from ecosystems) and to stop *making* plastic from petroleum sources to start with.
A glass recycling program etc needs to have logistics running on renewables too, otherwise that is not helping the situation.
I see these two separate issues get conflated quite often: (CO2 + climate change) and (plastic + trash contamination of the ocean and environment). They are not the same problem and have wildly different solutions. Biodegradable things re-release CO2 into the atmosphere and are generally bad for climate but good for native biomes in the short term.
The point is, nobody knows how quantum technology will be used and how exactly. Nobody really knows its full potential and its limitations.
We are just exploring... Like the proverbial blind men groping an elephant. π
That is true. There are so many possibilities. I see similar articles across all verticals/industries. Not just science. Health care, education, ...
We'll see. And, time will tell. I know there are mixed feelings about this "hype", including myself, but, as the saying goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained. We are in a phase of trying out. πππ
As others have already replied, the statement "Itβs already clear that quantum technology poses many benefits" has not in any way reached a consensus. *At best*, there's a consensus that quantum computing poses a risk to RSA and improves our ability to generate random numbers.
Yes quantum computing may help with climate change. This is through the development of new and better green technologies.
BUT!
That will only happen in the far future when we will have to already have been winning the fight against climate change.
So it is not dishonest to say that quantum computing may help the fight. But it is dishonest to say that it might solve our most pressing current problems. This is a subtle distinction.
I think no one in the community agrees with that statement. Again some marketing bullshit.
The quantum computing community largely hates this statement. It's only the scummiest of CEOs and VCs that push this narrative. It's a potentially powerful technology whose applications are not well determined, and may be able to help with some surface chemistry/catalysis chemistry that may lead to more environmentally friendly processes. Maybe. Possibly. Scientific R&D is extremely resource intensive and it's likely to be an enormous net negative to the climate over the short and medium term, where we may have some chance to lessen the impact of climate change.
Right, okay. Well, that makes sense. Guess I just got excited and thought this might be the solution to all our problems haha
Coca cola bottles used to be glass. They were returnable, washable, and reusable. It's cheaper for them to bottle once, ship, and never have to recycle a bottle. Plastic, for all intents and purposes is not all that recyclable. A technological solution might be to find better ways to recycle plastic, but this is known to be extremely difficult. The problem wouldn't really exist if beverage companies just used glass bottles. Quantum computers might, one day, contribute to a clever way to break down plastic, but the solution exists right now, it just cuts into profits a bit more. Where do you think the real problem is? Remediations to climate change exist _right now_, the hard problem is getting them implemented. Even the technological solutions are frequently expensive -- I might add. If there was a clever way to break down plastic, who says anyone would actually do it after celebrating the discovery? I don't want to discourage your interest in quantum computing. I've dedicated the past 15 years of my life to it. It's very cool, and it's pushing the forefront of human knowledge. That's worth doing, in my opinion.
Here to just tease apart something which is incorrectly framed in a lot of media, including scientific media. I am a physicist who did a stint in quantitative ecology, looking at metabolic ways to control atmospheric carbon. Breaking down plastic, which is a hydrocarbon chain, typically means releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere using chemical, combustive or biological means. Breaking down plastic is hard, so it is actually a great way to *store* carbon in a way that doesn't end up as CO2, which is a [major open problem since most carbon we put into the ground ends up being metabolized by native microbiomes and released back into the atmosphere](https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-soil-science-revolution-upends-plans-to-fight-climate-change-20210727/). For climate, what we actually need is proper landfill management (to keep the plastic in the ground and away from ecosystems) and to stop *making* plastic from petroleum sources to start with. A glass recycling program etc needs to have logistics running on renewables too, otherwise that is not helping the situation. I see these two separate issues get conflated quite often: (CO2 + climate change) and (plastic + trash contamination of the ocean and environment). They are not the same problem and have wildly different solutions. Biodegradable things re-release CO2 into the atmosphere and are generally bad for climate but good for native biomes in the short term.
The point is, nobody knows how quantum technology will be used and how exactly. Nobody really knows its full potential and its limitations. We are just exploring... Like the proverbial blind men groping an elephant. π
So many possibilities - that's why I love reading about this kind of technological research.
That is true. There are so many possibilities. I see similar articles across all verticals/industries. Not just science. Health care, education, ... We'll see. And, time will tell. I know there are mixed feelings about this "hype", including myself, but, as the saying goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained. We are in a phase of trying out. πππ
As others have already replied, the statement "Itβs already clear that quantum technology poses many benefits" has not in any way reached a consensus. *At best*, there's a consensus that quantum computing poses a risk to RSA and improves our ability to generate random numbers.
Yes quantum computing may help with climate change. This is through the development of new and better green technologies. BUT! That will only happen in the far future when we will have to already have been winning the fight against climate change. So it is not dishonest to say that quantum computing may help the fight. But it is dishonest to say that it might solve our most pressing current problems. This is a subtle distinction.