3 ms·
"As noted above, active technical management of radiative forcing rather clearly will entail expenditures of no more than $1 B/year, commencing not much sooner
by dr_dshiv 6y ago
"As noted above, active technical management of radiative forcing rather clearly will entail expenditures
of no more than $1 B/year, commencing not much sooner than a half-century hence, even in worst-case
scenarios.8
One thus might say, “Let’s just put a sinking-fund of $1.7 B into the bank for use in
generating $1 B/year forever, commencing a half-century hence, and proceed with the human race’s
business as usual. All of the Earth’s plants will be more productive for being much better-fed with CO2
and much less exposed to solar UV radiation, kids can play in the sun without fear, and we’ll continue
to enjoy today’s climate, bluer skies and better sunsets until the next Ice Age commences.”
Teller, E., Hyde, T., & Wood, L. (2002). Active climate stabilization: Practical physics-based approaches to prevention of climate change (No. UCRL-JC-148012). Lawrence Livermore National Lab.(LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States).
- graeme 6y agoIt’s rather simplistic thinking. For one, it ignores the acidification effect in oceans. That’s a consequence we can readily foresee. What other unforeseen consequences will there be? I think we might need something like this to reduce warming while we suck carbon out of the atmosphere. But to envisage it as a permanent solution is extremely risky. (We don’t have scaleable carbon sucking tech yet, but later we might have it but not enough time to use it, if warming continues and activates feedback loops)