3 ms·

Who's funding? What's the business model? How do we convince people that we need to experiment directly on the live system even though we don't really know what

Who's funding? What's the business model? How do we convince people that we need to experiment directly on the live system even though we don't really know what we are doing? It feels too big and without tangible ROI for private companies, too long term for politics, too hard for governments to justify the shot in the dark.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
1. Funding: NSF? Hell, how about DARPA. It isn't big money. It's a few science grants of $10 million, which, let's be honest, is pocket change compared to coastal flooding. 2. Business model: government contracting. Or carbon credits, eventually. 3. How to convince people: Good question. Probably by doing it small scale and getting convincing scientific evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that Stratospheric aerosol injection "is the most-researched SRM method, with high agreement that it could limit warming to below 1.5°C." People might not believe the IPCC, but with more empirical evidence they might. Tangible ROI: avoiding rapid climate change and enabling companies to transition out of fossil fuels. It's happening, we just need another couple decades. It isn't a shot in the dark, it is building on a scientific legacy. This isn't crazy business. It's science and engineering.
kergonath 5y ago
> How do we convince people that we need to experiment directly on the live system even though we don't really know what we are doing? This. All these “geoengineering now!” pleas are infuriating. It’s like a programmer’s simplistic solution to a complex problem, except that we don’t get to roll back a dodgy patch. We already have tools to avoid the worst if we wanted to, and waiting 20 years for the next technological breakthrough is dangerously stupid, particularly considering how little we know about how the biosphere works in general and the likelihood to fuck it up.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Have you read any scientific articles on this topic? This is the WHOLE earth we are talking about. Lofting a few hundred pounds of salt or sulfur to conduct research isn't going to "fuck it up." It's going to help us "know about how the biosphere works" If we learn that doesn't make sense to do it, we shouldn't do it. But we shouldn't ban the science and sit on our hands, waiting for people to stop having children (children are far and away the biggest contributor).

dr_dshiv 5y ago

1. Funding: NSF? Hell, how about DARPA. It isn't big money. It's a few science grants of $10 million, which, let's be honest, is pocket change compared to coastal flooding. 2. Business model: government contracting. Or carbon credits, eventually. 3. How to convince people: Good question. Probably by doing it small scale and getting convincing scientific evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that Stratospheric aerosol injection "is the most-researched SRM method, with high agreement that it could limit warming to below 1.5°C." People might not believe the IPCC, but with more empirical evidence they might. Tangible ROI: avoiding rapid climate change and enabling companies to transition out of fossil fuels. It's happening, we just need another couple decades. It isn't a shot in the dark, it is building on a scientific legacy. This isn't crazy business. It's science and engineering.

kergonath 5y ago

> How do we convince people that we need to experiment directly on the live system even though we don't really know what we are doing? This. All these “geoengineering now!” pleas are infuriating. It’s like a programmer’s simplistic solution to a complex problem, except that we don’t get to roll back a dodgy patch. We already have tools to avoid the worst if we wanted to, and waiting 20 years for the next technological breakthrough is dangerously stupid, particularly considering how little we know about how the biosphere works in general and the likelihood to fuck it up.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
Have you read any scientific articles on this topic? This is the WHOLE earth we are talking about. Lofting a few hundred pounds of salt or sulfur to conduct research isn't going to "fuck it up." It's going to help us "know about how the biosphere works" If we learn that doesn't make sense to do it, we shouldn't do it. But we shouldn't ban the science and sit on our hands, waiting for people to stop having children (children are far and away the biggest contributor).