5 ms·
Geoengineering is just a money sink if the root cause isn't tackled. This proposal might slow down SLR, but the oceans will continue to sour, temperatures to ri
by noiv 9y ago
Geoengineering is just a money sink if the root cause isn't tackled. This proposal might slow down SLR, but the oceans will continue to sour, temperatures to rise and weather becomes more economically threatening.
- detritus 9y ago> Geoengineering is just a money sink if the root cause isn't tackled. Sounds like the perfect industry for the consumer-age in that case.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- eloff 9y agoIndeed, but don't underestimate the value of buying time, especially when it's measured in centuries. That gives us time to transition our economies away from fossil fuels, time to develop more efficient agriculture and industry, perhaps even the holy grail of clean energy - fusion power. In theory it also buys us time to migrate more slowly away from the coast, or deploy carbon sequestration technologies, or build sea walls. All of which may get easier with more advanced technology. But I don't have much faith in humans doing that if we move the consequences further out into the future. We're so collectively short-sighted as a species.
- mkempe 9y agoWhat is the exact sea-level that is perfect and should be maintained --or returned to-- by all means? I have a similar question about the perfect amount of atmospheric CO2. We do know that the long-term trend of CO2 was headed down to a dangerously low level (plants would starve and land-based plant life would have catastrophically ended by 150ppm).
- bjelkeman-again 9y ago275 million people live in cities that will be flooded if we have a 3C warming. That is a pretty nice reason to maintain that sea level. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/0...
- mkempe 9y agoSo the current sea level is the one that must be kept? forever? or should it rather be the level at the start of British Industrialization, let's say in 1760? What about sea level changes that are not caused by us? should we stop that, too? in either direction? forever?
- ctrl-j 9y ago> So the current sea level is the one that must be kept? For now, yes. There are millions of people who will be impacted if we don't. If there is a reason to maintain a different sea level, we can weigh it against the impact of those currently affected. The people in 1760 are long dead, their oceans and their levels are less relevant.
- mkempe 9y agoThanks, that makes sense as a goal, to evaluate and minimize impact on current coastal populations. I assume future coastal population centers would actively shift inland, over multiple decades, if they take into account predicted sea level changes over the next 200 to 2,000 years.
- ctrl-j 9y agoIn a capitalist society, I wouldn't expect that. What would be the market incentive to migrate? As it stands currently, coastal property is the most valuable. There would need to be a mechanism to drive that migration. Perhaps a system that adds the cost of maintaining the current sea level to owning beachfront property?
- mkempe 9y agoMarket insurance without government support, and absence of emergency funding after disasters...