3 ms·
I chose "there is not the societal or political will", currently the least popular choice, so let me explain. Geoengineering will have side-effects. You can't
by scythe 4y ago
I chose "there is not the societal or political will", currently the least popular choice, so let me explain.
Geoengineering will have side-effects. You can't just laser-cool the atmosphere. You have to accept trade-offs.
Imposing the side-effects of geoengineering, whether by carbonyl sulfide or metallic reflectors or something else, on unwilling countries is bound to have geopolitical ramifications. International agreements to permit geoengineering will face just as difficult of a political battle as agreements to prevent GHG emissions, if not even worse.
You have to block a lot of sunlight for a long time. The whole biosphere literally runs on sunlight. This is not easy.
Finding a technology is easy. COS, probably the crudest option, could probably stop global warming for less than a trillion dollars [1]. But the ecosystem damage could easily be extreme.
1: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/5757/2022/acp-22-5757-2022.pdf https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/5757/2022/acp-22-5757...
- drewcoo 4y ago> Imposing the side-effects of geoengineering . . . on unwilling countries is bound to have geopolitical ramification I would think that the arms industry would get behind that. Thus both of their political parties here in the US would vote to fund it - freedom! As long as there's profit for those companies there will be "political will."
- PaulHoule 4y agoCountries are unwilling to stop emitting carbon so they've made the decision for themselves.
- MattGaiser 4y agoIf climate change ends up having the impacts we say, international agreement is not going to matter.