3 ms·
There are plausible scenarios where billions can die in less than 10 years: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p
by halfjoking 7y ago
There are plausible scenarios where billions can die in less than 10 years:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html
That's why we need geoengineering solutions right now. But there's no funding to test geoengineering solutions because the IPCC is so conservative and has a long track record of always underestimating the rate of climate change. Like the article says IPCC claims that major changes are years away. They've been consistently wrong every 5 years, and the speed at which their predictions diverge from reality is accelerating.
If we put real effort in limiting carbon emissions and investigating geoengineering there are almost no downsides... on the other hand if the IPCC is wrong we're all dead. Which option would you rather have?
- GVIrish 7y agoYes we really need to invest heavily in exploring geoengineering solutions while we still have time. Those solutions may have major trade offs, but the sooner we have an idea of what those are, the better. But I think the reality is that we're going to need geoengineering to either reverse or delay off some of the worst effects of climate changes. Meanwhile we still need to reduce emissions as much as we can.