4 ms·
I think this is a decent and brief response to why geoengineering is a bad idea: https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/reasons-to-oppose/ https://www.geoenginee
by skyfaller 4y ago
I think this is a decent and brief response to why geoengineering is a bad idea: https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/reasons-to-oppose/ https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/reasons-to-oppose/
The most convincing argument to me is that we're already facing a vast problem that would require a great deal of geoengineering to counter. If polluters realized they could geoengineer the problem away, they would stop trying to reduce emissions, and the geoengineering problem would become even larger and more unmanageable.
Due to how entropy works, it's always more efficient to simply not spill milk on the floor than to mop it up. Deciding that you should just have a milk bottle fight because you have a mop in the house is... strange? It will never be more efficient to scrub greenhouse gases from the air than to avoid emitting them in the first place.
- jcoq 4y agoThat argument is totally unconvincing... like saying not to treat some lung cancer because the patient will just smoke more.
- CM30 4y agoAgreed. It also makes me feel like some people want there to be no 'easy' solutions to problems, because they despise how society is going and wish it would be forced to change. I suspect they'd still be unhappy even if there was a magic wand you could wave that would instantly fix climate change (or make it impossible to occur).
- paulbaumgart 4y agoFor a more balanced view, I highly recommend this talk from one of the leading minds in the field: https://hmnh.harvard.edu/file/1039929 https://hmnh.harvard.edu/file/1039929
- poulpy123 4y agoI agree that geoengineering is a bad idea but they use the "white men" bogeyman, that's really stupid. And also they don't really talk about to price to pay for degrowth