4 ms·

This sounds pretty viable, and very cost effective. Any climate scientists want to chime in?

thepangolino 7y ago
A lot of geo engineering solutions sound way more cost effective than the currently undertaken mainstream efforts. The issue with geoengineering is the ethical questions it raises.
- devoply 7y ago
  Only if you are putting stuff into the atmosphere. If you are for instance removing CO2 to sequester it, no one should bat an eye. Same if you put a bunch of green sand somewhere. Really no price should be too high to pay to prevent global warming. It will be a problem which will cost literally trillions of dollars if we don't fix it.
  - naravara 7y ago
    The ethical questions are more along the lines of what kind of ecological damage or habitat destruction you’re doing.
- throwaway13337 7y ago
  We're already geoengineering without intention to create energy. This moral question is a red herring. It's more that those against geoengineering have unrealistic expectations that things can go 'back to the way they were' - some idealized past where the balance of nature is achieved and everything stays static. A fiction created by popular media. The world hasn't ever been static. With or without humans. We need a new basic narrative to get out of this way of thinking. It's really that intrinsic. We see the idealized past in Tolkien's work, in Avatar, in Disney movies - they create an idea that the only solution forward is reverse entropy. This is a damaging idea because it removes agency from us humans and leaves it up to the gods in which we'll inevitably come up empty-handed.
avip 7y ago
<not a climate scientist /> EW was never field-tested in any significant capacity. We know nothing about the cost-effectiveness of it, because we hardly understand if it'll work at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207#20596492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207#20596492

A lot of geo engineering solutions sound way more cost effective than the currently undertaken mainstream efforts. The issue with geoengineering is the ethical questions it raises.

devoply 7y ago
Only if you are putting stuff into the atmosphere. If you are for instance removing CO2 to sequester it, no one should bat an eye. Same if you put a bunch of green sand somewhere. Really no price should be too high to pay to prevent global warming. It will be a problem which will cost literally trillions of dollars if we don't fix it.
- naravara 7y ago
  The ethical questions are more along the lines of what kind of ecological damage or habitat destruction you’re doing.
throwaway13337 7y ago
We're already geoengineering without intention to create energy. This moral question is a red herring. It's more that those against geoengineering have unrealistic expectations that things can go 'back to the way they were' - some idealized past where the balance of nature is achieved and everything stays static. A fiction created by popular media. The world hasn't ever been static. With or without humans. We need a new basic narrative to get out of this way of thinking. It's really that intrinsic. We see the idealized past in Tolkien's work, in Avatar, in Disney movies - they create an idea that the only solution forward is reverse entropy. This is a damaging idea because it removes agency from us humans and leaves it up to the gods in which we'll inevitably come up empty-handed.

avip 7y ago

<not a climate scientist /> EW was never field-tested in any significant capacity. We know nothing about the cost-effectiveness of it, because we hardly understand if it'll work at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207#20596492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207#20596492