3 ms·

There's an obvious path to a future where we can avoid the worst outcomes of climate change affordably using geoengineering. But the loudest detractors of thes

There's an obvious path to a future where we can avoid the worst outcomes of climate change affordably using geoengineering. But the loudest detractors of these ideas are those who feel any path free of suffering or moralizing must be wrong. You can almost never get to a debate on the merits.

version_five 5y ago
I think you're right* It's easy to see who actually wants to address climate change, and who wants to use it as a lever to further a political agenda, by looking at support of different technological solutions, vs support for setting society and human progress back in some way as the only plausible solution. *(although I'm fuzzy on what can be included in geoengineering - this technology looks interesting and I'm a big fan of carbon capture, I don't support e.g. putting something in the atmosphere to reflect light into space or anything "unnatural" like that. But just removing CO2 from the atmosphere seems safe).
- ido 5y ago
  I think we should do everything we can (both reducing emissions and geoengineering) to fight climate change ASAP, but the problem is that a lot of very rich people (e.g. oil companies) are incentivized to not have people reduce emissions & will use the existence of technological solutions as an excuse to only do geoengineering. We really need both, and as much of both as possible as soon as possible.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > use the existence of technological solutions as an excuse to only do geoengineering. Actually, they use the potential existence of technological solutions as an excuse to do nothing. The politicians they bought and pay for aren't keen on funding geo-engineering. And if they did, they'd do it out of general revenue, as opposed to a carbon tax.
    - ido 5y ago
      Right. Basically we have to account for the existence of bad actors
      - _y5hn 5y ago
        Bad-actors and geo-engineering, we can't handle even one of them..
- jnsaff2 5y ago
  > I don't support e.g. putting something in the atmosphere to reflect light into space or anything "unnatural" like that. Putting gigatons of co2 to the atmosphere _is_ natural?
dpierce9 5y ago
Dismissing all concerns about geoengineering as moralizing is not reasonable. People are right to be cautious about geoengineering because our track record isn’t great, there are second-nth order effects which are hard to predict in a complex system like Earth, and there is no backup Earth or reset button. To wit, the geoengineering project of pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day hasn’t gone that well.
nemo44x 5y ago
There’s this weird streak of purification rituals in modern leftist groups (to say nothing of rightist groups who go to church) that I find disturbing. It’s not just holding the political belief or stance. You have to somehow suffer and be part of the struggle against what I assume is the straight white male patriarchy or something.

version_five 5y ago

I think you're right* It's easy to see who actually wants to address climate change, and who wants to use it as a lever to further a political agenda, by looking at support of different technological solutions, vs support for setting society and human progress back in some way as the only plausible solution. *(although I'm fuzzy on what can be included in geoengineering - this technology looks interesting and I'm a big fan of carbon capture, I don't support e.g. putting something in the atmosphere to reflect light into space or anything "unnatural" like that. But just removing CO2 from the atmosphere seems safe).

ido 5y ago
I think we should do everything we can (both reducing emissions and geoengineering) to fight climate change ASAP, but the problem is that a lot of very rich people (e.g. oil companies) are incentivized to not have people reduce emissions & will use the existence of technological solutions as an excuse to only do geoengineering. We really need both, and as much of both as possible as soon as possible.
- vkou 5y ago
  > use the existence of technological solutions as an excuse to only do geoengineering. Actually, they use the potential existence of technological solutions as an excuse to do nothing. The politicians they bought and pay for aren't keen on funding geo-engineering. And if they did, they'd do it out of general revenue, as opposed to a carbon tax.
  - ido 5y ago
    Right. Basically we have to account for the existence of bad actors
    - _y5hn 5y ago
      Bad-actors and geo-engineering, we can't handle even one of them..
jnsaff2 5y ago
> I don't support e.g. putting something in the atmosphere to reflect light into space or anything "unnatural" like that. Putting gigatons of co2 to the atmosphere _is_ natural?

dpierce9 5y ago

Dismissing all concerns about geoengineering as moralizing is not reasonable. People are right to be cautious about geoengineering because our track record isn’t great, there are second-nth order effects which are hard to predict in a complex system like Earth, and there is no backup Earth or reset button. To wit, the geoengineering project of pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day hasn’t gone that well.

nemo44x 5y ago

There’s this weird streak of purification rituals in modern leftist groups (to say nothing of rightist groups who go to church) that I find disturbing. It’s not just holding the political belief or stance. You have to somehow suffer and be part of the struggle against what I assume is the straight white male patriarchy or something.