4 ms·

These sorts of ideas are in a weird place. To many who are actively seeking better performance in our carbon reduction efforts, ideas like this could be seen as

These sorts of ideas are in a weird place. To many who are actively seeking better performance in our carbon reduction efforts, ideas like this could be seen as a threat to those efforts. ATM, the debate is (1)"is the carbon-climate problem real?" and (2) "If so, how do we reduce carbon emissions?". "Climate Engineering" would complicate 2 a lot, probably splitting political support. Politically, they open the door to continued or increased carbon emmissions today. They let us avoid addressing the "root cause." This is all regardless of timelines or progress. Just the existence of the idea in public debate might be enough to swing the opinion balance. I imagine there are some who would ideally like to keep geoengineering as a quite Plan B so as not to disturb current efforts, but that's not really possible. Overall, I think these ideas (if actually viable) will inevitably enter the discourse in the long term. We are already engineering in some sense. We have models and targets for both carbon and temperature. IE, we want to take control (to a small extent) of the climate. That's engineering, and engineers always look for more tools eventually.

dogma1138 9y ago
There is no debate and no climate scientist sees this as a threat. Reduction is needed but it won't cut it its too late for natural carbon sequestering at its normal pace. People who work on reduction also often work on sequestering and if not do not see these efforts as a threat to any of their work.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  Sure there's a debate. We're debating and discussing right now.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    For the most part we aren't climate scientists, there is absolutely no debate about carbon emissions and climate change.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> To many who are actively seeking better performance in our carbon reduction efforts, ideas like this could be seen as a threat to those efforts. This is sad. People thinking like this are actively sabotaging their own efforts and dreams. It's like a boat with a hole in it. You desperately need to stop the inflow of water (limiting emissions), but you could also use some way to pump out the water that's already in the boat (geoengineering). Because, 1) it's not the inflow that ultimately kills you, it's what has accumulated, and 2) pumping out gives you more time to fix the inflow. We need the plan B now. We also need plans C, D and E. What worries me though, is the "human playing god" magical thinking crowd will latch onto geoengineering efforts and gain popular support, the way anti-GMO and anti-vaccine groups did. Humanity is amazing at preventing itself from solving problems.
Touche 9y ago
Reduction efforts have lost. Deniers have successfully turned global warming into an issue of identity politics, not of science. Once something is within the realm of identity politics, there's no going back. We should continue to shout loudly that reduction is needed, but we need a Plan B asap. Counting on politics to turn in our favor is a losing cause.

dogma1138 9y ago

There is no debate and no climate scientist sees this as a threat. Reduction is needed but it won't cut it its too late for natural carbon sequestering at its normal pace. People who work on reduction also often work on sequestering and if not do not see these efforts as a threat to any of their work.

dalbasal 9y ago
Sure there's a debate. We're debating and discussing right now.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  For the most part we aren't climate scientists, there is absolutely no debate about carbon emissions and climate change.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> To many who are actively seeking better performance in our carbon reduction efforts, ideas like this could be seen as a threat to those efforts. This is sad. People thinking like this are actively sabotaging their own efforts and dreams. It's like a boat with a hole in it. You desperately need to stop the inflow of water (limiting emissions), but you could also use some way to pump out the water that's already in the boat (geoengineering). Because, 1) it's not the inflow that ultimately kills you, it's what has accumulated, and 2) pumping out gives you more time to fix the inflow. We need the plan B now. We also need plans C, D and E. What worries me though, is the "human playing god" magical thinking crowd will latch onto geoengineering efforts and gain popular support, the way anti-GMO and anti-vaccine groups did. Humanity is amazing at preventing itself from solving problems.

Touche 9y ago

Reduction efforts have lost. Deniers have successfully turned global warming into an issue of identity politics, not of science. Once something is within the realm of identity politics, there's no going back. We should continue to shout loudly that reduction is needed, but we need a Plan B asap. Counting on politics to turn in our favor is a losing cause.