5 ms·
Instead of self-imposing pseudo-malthusian constraints, why can't we just embrace the fact that we are geo-engineering on a massive scale and actively do it ins
by CopperSulfateII 10y ago
Instead of self-imposing pseudo-malthusian constraints, why can't we just embrace the fact that we are geo-engineering on a massive scale and actively do it instead of the accidental kind we have right now? It would only take an increase in tree biomass of 1.5% to offset human CO2 production. Phytoplankton stimulation would be an incredibly cost effective method to counteract human industrial activity yet why is it completely ignored in favor of regulating everything and constraining progress?
- scarmig 10y agoAs far as trees go, how many decades can you increase tree biomass continuously 1.5% year on year? Where does the extra land to do this come from? How do we build new land that can effectively grow new trees? It's fine, as far as it goes, but we'll run out of trees to plant long before we run out of fossil fuels to burn. Phytoplankton stimulation is a lot better, in that we can do it year on year. Indeed, it can, optimistically, remove around a billion tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, with advancements in technique and extremely widespread use, for a relatively low cost. Humans emit roughly 40 billion tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, though. Year on year, we add roughly a billion tons of CO2 emissions to our annual emission rate. We can go into even more exotic methods if you like. But if governments are unable to implement a tax on carbon that accounts for its externalities, why do you think governments would be willing to pony up even more money to sequester those externalities after the fact?
- abandonliberty 10y agoThe Kyoto protocol considered cut tree carbon to be released back into the atmosphere. There is plenty of land that used to have trees, but we now have 7 billion humans and their associated support organisms. https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/ We can get more efficient with our land use, though the benefit would likely be a more stabilized ecosystem rather than reversing climate carbon.
- pvaldes 10y agoThis xkcd comic is based in poor data, probably. Rats and domestic mice don't appear on it. Cats and dogs should appear also (and be in a big group). I would take it with a pinch of salt.
- asymmetric 10y agoWhy should we accept that the planet is our playground, that we are supposed to "engineer" our way out of a problem our "engineering" created?
- drabiega 10y agoPersonally I think it'd be better if we all adjusted our lifestyles to reduce our affect on the planet, but I just don't expect that to happen. Geo-engineering seems like a worse solution which is far more feasible to actually get done.
- asymmetric 10y agoGeoengineering is such a dangerous (both morally and in terms of its possible consequences) approach that it shouldn't seriously be considered as an option. Cfr. [1] for its possible consequences in Asia and Africa: Both tropical and Arctic SO2 injection would disrupt the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people. These regional climate anomalies are but one of many reasons that argue against the implementation of this kind of geoengineering. [1]: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR9inPress.pdf http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR9inPr...
- drabiega 10y agoWorse than doing nothing? I simply don't believe we'll get enough people to change their lifestyle, so nothing or Geoengineering are the only options.
- AlgorithmicTime 10y agoBecause engineering our way out is literally the only option. No one is going back to pre-industrial life if they can help it.