4 ms·

These threads always have people saying "hmm, I don't know about this, seems like there might be negative unintended consequences". I always want to say this,

These threads always have people saying "hmm, I don't know about this, seems like there might be negative unintended consequences". I always want to say this, so I'll say it here: Without some drastic step, global temperatures will rise by more than 2 degrees, causing widespread death, countless displaced people, extinct species, collapsed biomes, and so on. Second-order consequences like starvation, viral outbreaks, and wars are are harder to predict, but seem very likely. The solution to this, if there is one, will not be to reduce, reuse, and recycle. It will not be driving cars less, or eating less meat, or getting more power from renewable resources. Those are not drastic solutions, those are sensible solutions we could have taken a hundred years ago, but didn't. The thing to realize is that the damage has already been done, and we are just waiting for the effects to propagate. We're now in a situation where, distasteful and dangerous as they may be, technological solutions like this are the only possible solutions. Not necessarily this, but things like this, and as crazy (or crazier) than this sounds. Yes, unintended side effects. Yes, expensive. Yes, not guaranteed to work. That's what's on the table. From what I've seen, anything short of a novel technological solution at this point amounts to just waiting.

kelnos 4y ago
Not sure that's really the case. Carbon capture and sequestration is a thing, and is something we know that we can do with current technology. This atmosphere modification plan is still entirely theoretical, and any scientist who believes they can actually model all potential consequences is a quack, at best. Certainly carbon capture won't be enough; we do need to reduce emissions. We have the technology to do that, but often not the political will. I don't know how to fix that. Fortunately the move toward renewable sources of electricity does continue to march on, just a lot slower than it needs to be. > Yes, unintended side effects. What if the unintended side effects are worse than the effects of climate change?
paganel 4y ago
> extinct species, We've had extinct species for the last 200 years of Industrial Revolution, not sure a forced terraforming will change anything about that.
- feoren 4y ago
  You stub your toe all the time! Stop complaining that I'm pulverizing your legs and arms with a baseball bat! See how magnitude can matter?
  - paganel 4y ago
    I wish the destruction brought to the environment by the last 200 or so years had been just a “stub one’s toe” thing. I’m also highly skeptical of the transformation that took place from “climate change is real, maybe we should do something about it” to “we’re all going to die a because of it!”, all in a matter of a few years at most. I guess that apocalyptic spirit created by the reaction to the last pandemic had to be redirected somewhere.
pif 4y ago
> Yes, unintended side effects. Yes, expensive. Yes, not guaranteed to work. That's what's on the table. I think I see your point, but you are missing the elephant in the room. And you are not alone in missing it, so don't panic about being blind. > Without some drastic step, global temperatures will rise by more than 2 degrees... This, we know it for sure. Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly? More and more land around the equator will become inhabitable, and people will be forced to emigrate en masse? Let's help them to start emigrate today! Those tiny islands in the Indian Ocean that will be submerged by the rising water? Stop building there, and teach the children that their future will be somewhere else. Widespread viruses? Learn from Covid 19, cooperate world-wide to have express vaccines and so on. Sure, I'm talking about very, very sad scenarios, but so are you. But my proposals: 1- are based on what we know today; 2- we know that they can work; 3- we can estimate the amount of pain they will cause. None of this point applies to any other proposal I've ever heard about concerning global warming.
- feoren 4y ago
  I'm all good with helping people prepare for the effects of global warming, as long as that does nothing to detract from our efforts to prevent/reverse it. You said: > Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly? And the problem I have is the word "just". No, we're not going to just accept it. We should fight like hell to prevent that from happening. We can still plan and prepare for if all our fighting fails, but taking drastic steps and trying some moonshots is absolutely not off the table.
  - glyphosate 4y ago
    At best, the idea that we can "prevent/reverse" climate change, and control the global climate like a household thermostat is purely a hypothesis, at worst, its futile mythology that the priestly caste has been asserting as the path to salvation since the beginning of human history. Primitive hominids have learned to adapt thru massive climate change for millions of years. Makes sense that we should put more effort into what we know we can do (adapt), than unquestioningly following ideas that shamans, priests, and scientists claim can be done -- with zero proof.
mplewis 4y ago
This is learned helplessness. Nothing is set in stone about our world depending on power from burning oil.
nisegami 4y ago
>We're now in a situation where, distasteful and dangerous as they may be, technological solutions like this are the only possible solutions. What about degrowth?

kelnos 4y ago

Not sure that's really the case. Carbon capture and sequestration is a thing, and is something we know that we can do with current technology. This atmosphere modification plan is still entirely theoretical, and any scientist who believes they can actually model all potential consequences is a quack, at best. Certainly carbon capture won't be enough; we do need to reduce emissions. We have the technology to do that, but often not the political will. I don't know how to fix that. Fortunately the move toward renewable sources of electricity does continue to march on, just a lot slower than it needs to be. > Yes, unintended side effects. What if the unintended side effects are worse than the effects of climate change?

paganel 4y ago

> extinct species, We've had extinct species for the last 200 years of Industrial Revolution, not sure a forced terraforming will change anything about that.

feoren 4y ago
You stub your toe all the time! Stop complaining that I'm pulverizing your legs and arms with a baseball bat! See how magnitude can matter?
- paganel 4y ago
  I wish the destruction brought to the environment by the last 200 or so years had been just a “stub one’s toe” thing. I’m also highly skeptical of the transformation that took place from “climate change is real, maybe we should do something about it” to “we’re all going to die a because of it!”, all in a matter of a few years at most. I guess that apocalyptic spirit created by the reaction to the last pandemic had to be redirected somewhere.

pif 4y ago

> Yes, unintended side effects. Yes, expensive. Yes, not guaranteed to work. That's what's on the table. I think I see your point, but you are missing the elephant in the room. And you are not alone in missing it, so don't panic about being blind. > Without some drastic step, global temperatures will rise by more than 2 degrees... This, we know it for sure. Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly? More and more land around the equator will become inhabitable, and people will be forced to emigrate en masse? Let's help them to start emigrate today! Those tiny islands in the Indian Ocean that will be submerged by the rising water? Stop building there, and teach the children that their future will be somewhere else. Widespread viruses? Learn from Covid 19, cooperate world-wide to have express vaccines and so on. Sure, I'm talking about very, very sad scenarios, but so are you. But my proposals: 1- are based on what we know today; 2- we know that they can work; 3- we can estimate the amount of pain they will cause. None of this point applies to any other proposal I've ever heard about concerning global warming.

feoren 4y ago
I'm all good with helping people prepare for the effects of global warming, as long as that does nothing to detract from our efforts to prevent/reverse it. You said: > Why not just accepting it (as the fact we know it is) and start to plan accordingly? And the problem I have is the word "just". No, we're not going to just accept it. We should fight like hell to prevent that from happening. We can still plan and prepare for if all our fighting fails, but taking drastic steps and trying some moonshots is absolutely not off the table.
- glyphosate 4y ago
  At best, the idea that we can "prevent/reverse" climate change, and control the global climate like a household thermostat is purely a hypothesis, at worst, its futile mythology that the priestly caste has been asserting as the path to salvation since the beginning of human history. Primitive hominids have learned to adapt thru massive climate change for millions of years. Makes sense that we should put more effort into what we know we can do (adapt), than unquestioningly following ideas that shamans, priests, and scientists claim can be done -- with zero proof.

mplewis 4y ago

This is learned helplessness. Nothing is set in stone about our world depending on power from burning oil.

nisegami 4y ago

>We're now in a situation where, distasteful and dangerous as they may be, technological solutions like this are the only possible solutions. What about degrowth?