4 ms·

Wait, so everyone is allowed to contribute to global climate change without permission, but we need everyone's agreement to prevent it?

archagon 9y ago
Unfortunately, yes? Nobody made the decision to contribute to global climate change; it just kind of happened as an emergent consequence of the discovery of oil. Whereas a single country deciding to permanently tint the sky is not going to go over well with the global community, probably to the point of tanks on borders and missiles at ready.
- cortesoft 9y ago
  It wouldn't require global consent, just consent of the few global powers strong enough to do anything about it.
  - archagon 9y ago
    Sure, but I think it'll be very difficult to get the US, China, and Russia to agree on something as drastic as this before catastrophic climate-related events start taking place. (And let's not forget all the other nations with nuclear missiles. The playing field is a lot more level these days, for better or worse.)
    - adrianN 9y ago
      Luckily(?) catastrophic climate-related events are already happening.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    Only one. If the USA, Russia or any other nuclear power does it there won't be a war. Nuclear is the key word here, Those wars are much more costly than any amount climate change.
- DennisP 9y ago
  So altering the climate is fine, if it's a side effect of making money. It's just doing it at a financial loss that's a problem. Maybe we should focus on ocean fertilization with iron as a way of increasing fish yields. Who can begrudge some poor fishermen trying to bring home more fish? It's not their fault if it also sequesters CO2. Solar radiation management also offers possibilities though. We already spew lots of soot and other pollutants into the air without anyone rolling out missiles. We just need to figure out industries with the right kind of pollution and we're good.
Sharlin 9y ago
This is basically the root of most coordination problems. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

archagon 9y ago

Unfortunately, yes? Nobody made the decision to contribute to global climate change; it just kind of happened as an emergent consequence of the discovery of oil. Whereas a single country deciding to permanently tint the sky is not going to go over well with the global community, probably to the point of tanks on borders and missiles at ready.

cortesoft 9y ago
It wouldn't require global consent, just consent of the few global powers strong enough to do anything about it.
- archagon 9y ago
  Sure, but I think it'll be very difficult to get the US, China, and Russia to agree on something as drastic as this before catastrophic climate-related events start taking place. (And let's not forget all the other nations with nuclear missiles. The playing field is a lot more level these days, for better or worse.)
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Luckily(?) catastrophic climate-related events are already happening.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  Only one. If the USA, Russia or any other nuclear power does it there won't be a war. Nuclear is the key word here, Those wars are much more costly than any amount climate change.
DennisP 9y ago
So altering the climate is fine, if it's a side effect of making money. It's just doing it at a financial loss that's a problem. Maybe we should focus on ocean fertilization with iron as a way of increasing fish yields. Who can begrudge some poor fishermen trying to bring home more fish? It's not their fault if it also sequesters CO2. Solar radiation management also offers possibilities though. We already spew lots of soot and other pollutants into the air without anyone rolling out missiles. We just need to figure out industries with the right kind of pollution and we're good.

Sharlin 9y ago

This is basically the root of most coordination problems. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/