4 ms·

From my understanding, there's two major issues with geoengineering. 1. You have to keep doing it forever, and likely accelerate the rate at which you do. If r

From my understanding, there's two major issues with geoengineering. 1. You have to keep doing it forever, and likely accelerate the rate at which you do. If rapid decarbonization doesn't happen in tandem, you'll need to be adding more and more aerosols over time. And the second you stop, you get a sudden whiplash climate change event that has a hundred years of warming in one. The risk of that catastrophe isn't worthwhile to many. 2. Most of the compounds that are cheap and effective are both ozone depleters and cause acid rain. The one studied most is Sulfur Dioxide, which would cause ocean acidification after many years of sustained use. IMO, it's a fundamentally bad idea because it's using one form of pollution to fix the problem created by another. The second and third order effects could be unforeseen and catastrophic.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
Just to break these separate arguments up into pieces: 1. "You have to keep doing it forever" 2. "[Stopping] creates a sudden whiplash climate change event" 3. Geoengineering will deplete the ozone 4. Geoengineering causes acid raid 5. Geoengineering causes ocean acidification 6. Fundamentally bad: "one form of pollution to fix the problem created by another" 7. "second and third order effects could be unforeseen and catastrophic" 8. If we use geoengineering, then people won't decarbonize (I'm assuming this is also a concern). 1. We do lots of things forever, like collecting taxes or taking out the trash. So I don't understand that issue. 2. Why would we stop, if it is so important? 3. Open to ozone depletion as a bigger problem, but just by tonnage, it should be 1/3 of the effect described here: https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gcp/studentpapers/1996/atmoschem/huff.html#:~:text=SO2%20depletes%20the%20ozone,ozone%20production%20is%20also%20reduced https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gcp/studentpapers/1996/atmos... 4. According to this article, acid rain from geoengineering would be a small fraction of the effect of current industrial pollution: https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD011918 https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD011918 5. Ocean acidification is a real concern. But I suspect 2 degrees of warming will much more dangerous to ocean ecosystems. 6. I don't understand the fundamentally bad argument. Neither CO2 nor SO2 are bad chemicals. Our goal should be to moderate the climate; maybe we need one chemical to balance the other. 7. This is my personal opinion, but I think the second and third order effects need to be studied scientifically. The second and third order effects of degrowth are also real. 8. I think a move to geoengineering would be politically advantageous for decarbonization policy. No one wants geoengineering. But if we need it, we need it—and if we might need it, we should study it carefully, scientifically.

dr_dshiv 4y ago

Just to break these separate arguments up into pieces: 1. "You have to keep doing it forever" 2. "[Stopping] creates a sudden whiplash climate change event" 3. Geoengineering will deplete the ozone 4. Geoengineering causes acid raid 5. Geoengineering causes ocean acidification 6. Fundamentally bad: "one form of pollution to fix the problem created by another" 7. "second and third order effects could be unforeseen and catastrophic" 8. If we use geoengineering, then people won't decarbonize (I'm assuming this is also a concern). 1. We do lots of things forever, like collecting taxes or taking out the trash. So I don't understand that issue. 2. Why would we stop, if it is so important? 3. Open to ozone depletion as a bigger problem, but just by tonnage, it should be 1/3 of the effect described here: https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gcp/studentpapers/1996/atmoschem/huff.html#:~:text=SO2%20depletes%20the%20ozone,ozone%20production%20is%20also%20reduced https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gcp/studentpapers/1996/atmos... 4. According to this article, acid rain from geoengineering would be a small fraction of the effect of current industrial pollution: https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD011918 https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD011918 5. Ocean acidification is a real concern. But I suspect 2 degrees of warming will much more dangerous to ocean ecosystems. 6. I don't understand the fundamentally bad argument. Neither CO2 nor SO2 are bad chemicals. Our goal should be to moderate the climate; maybe we need one chemical to balance the other. 7. This is my personal opinion, but I think the second and third order effects need to be studied scientifically. The second and third order effects of degrowth are also real. 8. I think a move to geoengineering would be politically advantageous for decarbonization policy. No one wants geoengineering. But if we need it, we need it—and if we might need it, we should study it carefully, scientifically.