3 ms·

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 lookin

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    Right. Basically we have to account for the existence of bad actors
    - _y5hn 4y ago
      Bad-actors and geo-engineering, we can't handle even one of them..
jnsaff2 4y 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?