3 ms·

There are several problems with this approach. The person performing the forming would essentially be cleaning up the polution of everyone else. Terraforming w

by ArnoVW 6y ago

There are several problems with this approach. The person performing the forming would essentially be cleaning up the polution of everyone else. Terraforming would require global agreement and adherence to a highly capital-intensive enterprise. This is not unlike the discussions about limiting global warming, which are not a frank success. We currently have no means of cleaning up that is more efficient ie less costly) than the methods we gave for limiting pollution. And it is already impossible to get people to accept to pay those costs. That is not to say that it should not be researched. But to propose it as an alternative is not helpful in the current political context. It is akin to saying "yea but we'll win the lottery anyway" when other people are trying to get the community to accept a balancing of the budget.

ganzuul 6y ago
You do realize the alternative is megadeath, right?
- ArnoVW 6y ago
  Fully agree with you that if we do nothing, we're heading for a world of pain. But I never said we should do nothing. In fact I pointed out we already have other options. Real ones, today, that we know will work. Eat less meat. Drive less and smaller cars. Use less packaging, clothing, etc. Build smaller and better houses, that need less air-conditioning and heating. Put a price on CO2 and let the market figure it out. But no-one likes them. So sure, if we keep sticking our heads in the sand we're heading for megadeaths. Sure, it would be nice if technology could help us get out of this mess without sacrificing our way of life. But the technology does not exist today. And certainly not one that has a better chance of being accepted than the other measures I've already listed.
  - ganzuul 6y ago
    By changing the narrative all kinds of things become possible. We see today that society can eat trillions in economic losses to save people from a virus. We can replicate this communication structure to deal with longer-term threats to the survival of our species. It is all about building up the political momentum that gets us a moonshot. Once we are pouring resources into this project perceptions on what is acceptable energy use will also change. People will see society rowing the boat in one direction, and outliers rowing in the wrong direction (excessive emission) will be scorned. Changing the narrative to terraforming has the potential to unite mankind, while the climate change narrative has been divisive as pollution becomes a commodity to barter for. With enough cleverness in how the idea is presented the money allotted national defense can be re-purposed for climate defense. The 'creating jobs' narrative can also be utilized. - We just need to start talking in this way that I'm prototyping here until it catches on.
chr1 6y ago
> But to propose it as an alternative is not helpful in the current political context Suggesting that we should keep silent about a way of solving the problem, so that other people don't get "ideas", is even less helpful in any context, as you lose your credibility in the eyes of people whom you are trying to convince. > essentially be cleaning up the pollution of everyone else. Terraforming would require global agreement and adherence to a highly capital-intensive enterprise That would be true if we were talking about a toxic substance, CO2 is not a pollutant, and there are ways to use it: for instance by terraforming deserts into living ecosystems that would use the extra CO2. And this includes not only deserts like sahara, but also vast areas of ocean devoid of life because of currents not lifting nutrients from the bottom of the sea. People do not accept to pay costs for "limiting pollution" because they are not convinced that proposed solutions can work with anywhere reasonable cost. And for that we need not to simply talk everyone into accepting unviable solution out of fear, but to propose something that works and provides additional benefits. Terraforming deserts and controlling the weather is one such solution, which gets unfairly dismissed and downvoted.
- ArnoVW 6y ago
  It does not matter if it is toxic or not. It's a chemical byproduct that we don't want in the atmosphere. That means it's a pollutant. Sure. Terra forming works. Conceptually. If you can manage to build a rainforest in the desert, that will fix some co2. That is not the issue. The issue is: how to build a rainforest in the desert. Technically, and economically. Have you considered the amount of water you'd need? The irrigation system required for that? Where would the water come from? For reference, there is already a lot of geopolitics over water supply in the middle east. Have you considered how poor the soil is? How much work it would be to enrich that soil? We are already raising alarm bells regarding our phosphate stock. How would you keep the ecosystem in balance? If you can't you don't need an army of people to maintain it. Most importantly, it would only buy you time. It would fix some of the co2 in trees. But if we continue to burn oil, we'll keep adding co2 to the atmosphere. Every barrel of oil is 430 kilos of co2. That's a lot of tree for one barrel. And you've only fixed it temporarily. If at any time your artificial forest collapses (this being your first terra forming attempt), your trees decompose and release the co2. Again. I'm not saying that any option should be off the table. But I do not think it benefits the already complicated debates, if we present theoretical scenarios as solutions.

by ArnoVW 6y ago

ganzuul 6y ago

You do realize the alternative is megadeath, right?

ArnoVW 6y ago
Fully agree with you that if we do nothing, we're heading for a world of pain. But I never said we should do nothing. In fact I pointed out we already have other options. Real ones, today, that we know will work. Eat less meat. Drive less and smaller cars. Use less packaging, clothing, etc. Build smaller and better houses, that need less air-conditioning and heating. Put a price on CO2 and let the market figure it out. But no-one likes them. So sure, if we keep sticking our heads in the sand we're heading for megadeaths. Sure, it would be nice if technology could help us get out of this mess without sacrificing our way of life. But the technology does not exist today. And certainly not one that has a better chance of being accepted than the other measures I've already listed.
- ganzuul 6y ago
  By changing the narrative all kinds of things become possible. We see today that society can eat trillions in economic losses to save people from a virus. We can replicate this communication structure to deal with longer-term threats to the survival of our species. It is all about building up the political momentum that gets us a moonshot. Once we are pouring resources into this project perceptions on what is acceptable energy use will also change. People will see society rowing the boat in one direction, and outliers rowing in the wrong direction (excessive emission) will be scorned. Changing the narrative to terraforming has the potential to unite mankind, while the climate change narrative has been divisive as pollution becomes a commodity to barter for. With enough cleverness in how the idea is presented the money allotted national defense can be re-purposed for climate defense. The 'creating jobs' narrative can also be utilized. - We just need to start talking in this way that I'm prototyping here until it catches on.

chr1 6y ago

> But to propose it as an alternative is not helpful in the current political context Suggesting that we should keep silent about a way of solving the problem, so that other people don't get "ideas", is even less helpful in any context, as you lose your credibility in the eyes of people whom you are trying to convince. > essentially be cleaning up the pollution of everyone else. Terraforming would require global agreement and adherence to a highly capital-intensive enterprise That would be true if we were talking about a toxic substance, CO2 is not a pollutant, and there are ways to use it: for instance by terraforming deserts into living ecosystems that would use the extra CO2. And this includes not only deserts like sahara, but also vast areas of ocean devoid of life because of currents not lifting nutrients from the bottom of the sea. People do not accept to pay costs for "limiting pollution" because they are not convinced that proposed solutions can work with anywhere reasonable cost. And for that we need not to simply talk everyone into accepting unviable solution out of fear, but to propose something that works and provides additional benefits. Terraforming deserts and controlling the weather is one such solution, which gets unfairly dismissed and downvoted.

ArnoVW 6y ago
It does not matter if it is toxic or not. It's a chemical byproduct that we don't want in the atmosphere. That means it's a pollutant. Sure. Terra forming works. Conceptually. If you can manage to build a rainforest in the desert, that will fix some co2. That is not the issue. The issue is: how to build a rainforest in the desert. Technically, and economically. Have you considered the amount of water you'd need? The irrigation system required for that? Where would the water come from? For reference, there is already a lot of geopolitics over water supply in the middle east. Have you considered how poor the soil is? How much work it would be to enrich that soil? We are already raising alarm bells regarding our phosphate stock. How would you keep the ecosystem in balance? If you can't you don't need an army of people to maintain it. Most importantly, it would only buy you time. It would fix some of the co2 in trees. But if we continue to burn oil, we'll keep adding co2 to the atmosphere. Every barrel of oil is 430 kilos of co2. That's a lot of tree for one barrel. And you've only fixed it temporarily. If at any time your artificial forest collapses (this being your first terra forming attempt), your trees decompose and release the co2. Again. I'm not saying that any option should be off the table. But I do not think it benefits the already complicated debates, if we present theoretical scenarios as solutions.