2 ms·
We have solutions, there's an entire field with solutions, it's called climate engineering[0]. The problem is that currently it's not politically supported beca
by lagadu 5y ago
We have solutions, there's an entire field with solutions, it's called climate engineering[0]. The problem is that currently it's not politically supported because the thought of humans actively editing the climate to suit our needs makes the wildly vast majority of environmentalists start foaming at the mouth and, ironically, doom trolling any solutions because the current thought paradigm is "we have to interfere less", ignoring that it's way too late for that. Also because with climate engineering there's very little need to reduce emissions, which again makes current environmentalists get aneurysms.
In other words, nowadays climate change is no longer an engineering problem, only a political one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
- _djo_ 5y agoThat's a simplistic take and unfair to those who are cautious about it. Most opposition to climate engineering is based on the risks of introducing more instability to a complex system we already don't completely understand. For instance experiments to fertilize oceans with iron to supposedly stimulate phytoplankton production had all kinds of unexpected side effects and failed to produce the hoped-for outcome. We will certainly be forced into climate engineering solutions of some sort, as emission reductions alone are no longer sufficient to solve the problem even if we drop to net zero immediately, but they should be treated with caution and skepticism because of the inherent risk involved. It also varies by the type of engineering. CO2 sequestration is widely accepted and desired because of its low risk, but it's difficult and expensive.