5 ms·

It's easier to geo-engineer the atmosphere than to stop polluting it? I'm not sure I understand what's going on in the world anymore.

BurningFrog 4y ago
One organization, the US government, could do this alone. Stopping a billion separate entities polluting the atmosphere is organizationally infinitely harder.
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  So we just keep reflecting more and more light and heat while we made the planet more and more smoggy and barren. What are the second and third order effects?
- ericd 4y ago
  No, because the people of the US absolutely do not want to decrease their living standards to the extent it would require. The government would most likely be promptly fired if it went the austerity route.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - partiallypro 4y ago
    The world is bigger than the US, and cutting living standards for people in Africa, China, etc that JUST came out of poverty is not ideal or moral.
    - dont__panic 4y ago
      This assumes that current US and EU living standards are inherently better than other ways of living. But what if you could live sustainably and maintain a higher quality of living? Why not use tech like solar panels, geothermal heating/cooling, and more to help those countries "skip over" the dirty, coal-burning period of industrialization and invent something better (and more sustainable)? We tend to assume that living in the US, driving around a polluting car, buying up polluting gadgets, throwing away tons of plastic per person, burning propane and natural gas and oil for heating, watering your lawn in the desert, etc. are all... the best way to live. But you could supply small towns in Africa with solar panels and let them figure out a better way, no? And they have certain advantages -- like distributed small farms, walkable towns, no "technical debt" of inefficient gadgets and gizmos in their houses -- that put them in a much better position than countries like the USA. Take the massive US military budget and spend it on this instead.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    I think you've misread the comment you're replying to. He's saying the US could do the aerosol thing, which would not require a big decrease in living standards.
    - ericd 4y ago
      Ah yep, you’re right, thanks for the correction. It’s not a fix, though, just buys us a little time. We have to stop polluting if we want to avoid catastrophe - we likely have to get to net negative. So we’d still have the multi-billion people coordination problem.
      - concordDance 4y ago
        It would be a fix for global warming, just not other things like ocean acidification.
NegativeLatency 4y ago
It's potentially more profitable (in the short term, and for the people proposing it) to geo-engineer the atmosphere. Late stage capitalism and globalization would be my guess. I've heard it said that the US is good at coming up with technical solutions to social problems and this seems like the perfect example of that. (Analogous to our terrible highway/stroad system in most cities, that moves a lot of vehicles and kills a lot of people)
- ryan93 4y ago
  Is the US good at shutting down Indian and Chinese coal plants?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    The US could be great at shutting down Indian and Chinese coal plants by EO. Just provide asylum to those that would seek to do it by any means necessary.
    - tb_technical 4y ago
      Could you please clarify? Are you talking about encouraging wreckers and then taking them in as refugees?
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Yes, this is the climate change version of McD Theory[1]. 1. https://jonbell.medium.com/mcdonalds-theory-9216e1c9da7d https://jonbell.medium.com/mcdonalds-theory-9216e1c9da7d
        tb_technical 4y ago
        Selecting something awful for lunch doesn't have potential for disasterous consequences the way state sponsored terrorism does, though.
sigstoat 4y ago
> It's easier to geo-engineer the atmosphere than to stop polluting it? coordination problems are tough, and there's no reason to believe that the largest one ever encountered should be easier than one organization deciding to engage in a large scale engineering project.
awillen 4y ago
The problem is even if we stop polluting it on any reasonably possible timeline, we'll still see continued heating of the planet (and even if we didn't, it's already hot enough to be seriously affecting natural disasters like hurricane Ian). We need short term solutions like this, medium term solutions like reducing carbon emissions and longer term solutions like carbon capture. It's a complicated problem and the world is a complicated place.
bee_rider 4y ago
The temperament of humanity is just that we can't solve a problem by producing and consuming less. We're not going to stop fighting this planet, and if that means we have to kick weather in the nuts, we'll do that too.
hnaccount_rng 4y ago
Yes it absolutely is. The pollution is the consequence of an organically grown, over 300 years no less, system, whose incentives we barely (if at all) understand and whose control knobs are extremely indirect (and equally poorly understood). And that ignores, that it may very well be, that the pure momentum of the system is too large for us to be "safe" even if we magic'd a complete solution stop _right now_. We had a climate scientist make the statement in a colloquium over here, basically saying that he doesn't like humanity starting with geoengineering solution because we barely understand the system. He's of course correct with the latter part. We don't understand the earth's ecosystem. But he is _at least_ 300 years late with the first part. We are already doing geoengineering for quite some time, it just happens that the earth is a rather inert system and it takes a while to react.
concordDance 4y ago
Why is this surprising? Let's say you're a factory that makes widgets but produces hydrochloric acid as a result. You're currently leaking it into the water table. It's cheaper to just start bottling the acid than to stop producing widgets.

BurningFrog 4y ago

One organization, the US government, could do this alone. Stopping a billion separate entities polluting the atmosphere is organizationally infinitely harder.

birdyrooster 4y ago
So we just keep reflecting more and more light and heat while we made the planet more and more smoggy and barren. What are the second and third order effects?
ericd 4y ago
No, because the people of the US absolutely do not want to decrease their living standards to the extent it would require. The government would most likely be promptly fired if it went the austerity route.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- partiallypro 4y ago
  The world is bigger than the US, and cutting living standards for people in Africa, China, etc that JUST came out of poverty is not ideal or moral.
  - dont__panic 4y ago
    This assumes that current US and EU living standards are inherently better than other ways of living. But what if you could live sustainably and maintain a higher quality of living? Why not use tech like solar panels, geothermal heating/cooling, and more to help those countries "skip over" the dirty, coal-burning period of industrialization and invent something better (and more sustainable)? We tend to assume that living in the US, driving around a polluting car, buying up polluting gadgets, throwing away tons of plastic per person, burning propane and natural gas and oil for heating, watering your lawn in the desert, etc. are all... the best way to live. But you could supply small towns in Africa with solar panels and let them figure out a better way, no? And they have certain advantages -- like distributed small farms, walkable towns, no "technical debt" of inefficient gadgets and gizmos in their houses -- that put them in a much better position than countries like the USA. Take the massive US military budget and spend it on this instead.
- concordDance 4y ago
  I think you've misread the comment you're replying to. He's saying the US could do the aerosol thing, which would not require a big decrease in living standards.
  - ericd 4y ago
    Ah yep, you’re right, thanks for the correction. It’s not a fix, though, just buys us a little time. We have to stop polluting if we want to avoid catastrophe - we likely have to get to net negative. So we’d still have the multi-billion people coordination problem.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      It would be a fix for global warming, just not other things like ocean acidification.

NegativeLatency 4y ago

It's potentially more profitable (in the short term, and for the people proposing it) to geo-engineer the atmosphere. Late stage capitalism and globalization would be my guess. I've heard it said that the US is good at coming up with technical solutions to social problems and this seems like the perfect example of that. (Analogous to our terrible highway/stroad system in most cities, that moves a lot of vehicles and kills a lot of people)

ryan93 4y ago
Is the US good at shutting down Indian and Chinese coal plants?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  The US could be great at shutting down Indian and Chinese coal plants by EO. Just provide asylum to those that would seek to do it by any means necessary.
  - tb_technical 4y ago
    Could you please clarify? Are you talking about encouraging wreckers and then taking them in as refugees?
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Yes, this is the climate change version of McD Theory[1]. 1. https://jonbell.medium.com/mcdonalds-theory-9216e1c9da7d https://jonbell.medium.com/mcdonalds-theory-9216e1c9da7d
      - tb_technical 4y ago
        Selecting something awful for lunch doesn't have potential for disasterous consequences the way state sponsored terrorism does, though.

sigstoat 4y ago

> It's easier to geo-engineer the atmosphere than to stop polluting it? coordination problems are tough, and there's no reason to believe that the largest one ever encountered should be easier than one organization deciding to engage in a large scale engineering project.

awillen 4y ago

The problem is even if we stop polluting it on any reasonably possible timeline, we'll still see continued heating of the planet (and even if we didn't, it's already hot enough to be seriously affecting natural disasters like hurricane Ian). We need short term solutions like this, medium term solutions like reducing carbon emissions and longer term solutions like carbon capture. It's a complicated problem and the world is a complicated place.

bee_rider 4y ago

The temperament of humanity is just that we can't solve a problem by producing and consuming less. We're not going to stop fighting this planet, and if that means we have to kick weather in the nuts, we'll do that too.

hnaccount_rng 4y ago

Yes it absolutely is. The pollution is the consequence of an organically grown, over 300 years no less, system, whose incentives we barely (if at all) understand and whose control knobs are extremely indirect (and equally poorly understood). And that ignores, that it may very well be, that the pure momentum of the system is too large for us to be "safe" even if we magic'd a complete solution stop _right now_. We had a climate scientist make the statement in a colloquium over here, basically saying that he doesn't like humanity starting with geoengineering solution because we barely understand the system. He's of course correct with the latter part. We don't understand the earth's ecosystem. But he is _at least_ 300 years late with the first part. We are already doing geoengineering for quite some time, it just happens that the earth is a rather inert system and it takes a while to react.

concordDance 4y ago

Why is this surprising? Let's say you're a factory that makes widgets but produces hydrochloric acid as a result. You're currently leaking it into the water table. It's cheaper to just start bottling the acid than to stop producing widgets.