4 ms·

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, our best climate outcomes from the IPCC all rely on DAC; a tech still in it's infancy, deployed to a wider extent th

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, our best climate outcomes from the IPCC all rely on DAC; a tech still in it's infancy, deployed to a wider extent than any other technology we've ever developed. This will fail. Our world will keep getting hotter and we'll resort to stratospheric sulfide injection as a temporary stopgap, but that will have consequences.

throw_away1525 4y ago
%s/tech/magick
johnchristopher 4y ago
Politicians and leaders are betting on tech solutions because no one is ready or willing to implement massive reduction in CO2 production and bear the societal consequences. Once we get to sulfide injection we'll just factor it into acceptable levels of CO2 production, to keep things running until nothing can be done about adapting to climate change anymore. If anything, Covid convinced me that's the kind of scenario to expect. Of course I hope for something else but better be prepared for the worst.
- Cardinal7167 4y ago
  Ironically enough Covid showed us how fast emissions could be curbed and how quickly nature started to reclaim space when it was given room to breathe. The canals in Venice flowed clear for the first time in decades, air quality the world over improved drastically, etc… we all saw it, and nobody gave a fuck. Everyone is too concerned with their bottom dollar and it’s gonna be too late to change once the collapse starts.
gtop3 4y ago
We're on the path for stratospheric sulfide injection to be the utilitarian choice, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Effective Altruism groups discussing it as a very cost effective way to save lives in 30 years. The primary effects are relatively short lived (a few decades) and fast-acting (months). It will reduce global temperatures. Sulfide is cheap, the cost is mostly in fighting gravity. It probably won't happen until there is a stronger narrative around human life lost due to climate change. A bad summer with lots of catastrophes hitting the front page. The global political environment is setup so a non-superpower might act alone or with few allies. While it sounds great on paper, the secondary order effects will last longer than primary and are very hard to quantify. It's clearly 10x-1000x cheaper to cut CO2 emissions now than to try to block out the sun with geoclimate engineering in a few decades.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  I'll be honest, any time I see EA groups latch onto an idea, its a good heuristic that the idea is fucking terrible.
  - gtop3 4y ago
    You should be skeptical of all ideas, not just ones that comes from groups you are skeptical about. EA's point that charities that provide malaria medication and vitamin A supplementation for pour children are very cost effective ways to save lives are very good. That might make other good points too. They are often very good at convincing people that certain charities are worthy of donation. I think it's possible that we'll see similar arguments form members of that group for extreme climate change measures.
  - PoignardAzur 4y ago
    That seems less like a principled heuristic and more like "eww, these people are icky, screw them". As a general rule, EA groups have a tendency to latch onto ideas that are radical, ideas outside the overton window. You shouldn't assume that automatically means they're bad unless your heuristic is "we should never stray outside the overton window, ever".
    - nibbleshifter 4y ago
      I have had a good amount of interactions with EA folks, a good number of well meaning people in my social circles are into it. I have no issue with radical ideas "outside the window" personally, but often find that EA groups tend to go right for barely workable "grand plans" and often don't listen to the people with boots on the ground, actually doing the work. I'd give specific examples, but it would be doxing myself as many of them are extremely specific.
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  >the secondary order effects will last longer than primary and are very hard to quantify. Yep, scientists already suggest it would disrupt rainfall in the 3rd world. Ironically the same nations that will be the worst hit from global warming regardless. What will India's reaction be when their monsoon rains fail because of the unilateral actions of another country? It's not a good idea to destabilize a nuclear armed nation.
a-user-you-like 4y ago
And it’s like AOC said, we’ve only got 12 years until the planet is dead anyway.

throw_away1525 4y ago

%s/tech/magick

johnchristopher 4y ago

Politicians and leaders are betting on tech solutions because no one is ready or willing to implement massive reduction in CO2 production and bear the societal consequences. Once we get to sulfide injection we'll just factor it into acceptable levels of CO2 production, to keep things running until nothing can be done about adapting to climate change anymore. If anything, Covid convinced me that's the kind of scenario to expect. Of course I hope for something else but better be prepared for the worst.

Cardinal7167 4y ago
Ironically enough Covid showed us how fast emissions could be curbed and how quickly nature started to reclaim space when it was given room to breathe. The canals in Venice flowed clear for the first time in decades, air quality the world over improved drastically, etc… we all saw it, and nobody gave a fuck. Everyone is too concerned with their bottom dollar and it’s gonna be too late to change once the collapse starts.

gtop3 4y ago

We're on the path for stratospheric sulfide injection to be the utilitarian choice, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Effective Altruism groups discussing it as a very cost effective way to save lives in 30 years. The primary effects are relatively short lived (a few decades) and fast-acting (months). It will reduce global temperatures. Sulfide is cheap, the cost is mostly in fighting gravity. It probably won't happen until there is a stronger narrative around human life lost due to climate change. A bad summer with lots of catastrophes hitting the front page. The global political environment is setup so a non-superpower might act alone or with few allies. While it sounds great on paper, the secondary order effects will last longer than primary and are very hard to quantify. It's clearly 10x-1000x cheaper to cut CO2 emissions now than to try to block out the sun with geoclimate engineering in a few decades.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
I'll be honest, any time I see EA groups latch onto an idea, its a good heuristic that the idea is fucking terrible.
- gtop3 4y ago
  You should be skeptical of all ideas, not just ones that comes from groups you are skeptical about. EA's point that charities that provide malaria medication and vitamin A supplementation for pour children are very cost effective ways to save lives are very good. That might make other good points too. They are often very good at convincing people that certain charities are worthy of donation. I think it's possible that we'll see similar arguments form members of that group for extreme climate change measures.
- PoignardAzur 4y ago
  That seems less like a principled heuristic and more like "eww, these people are icky, screw them". As a general rule, EA groups have a tendency to latch onto ideas that are radical, ideas outside the overton window. You shouldn't assume that automatically means they're bad unless your heuristic is "we should never stray outside the overton window, ever".
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    I have had a good amount of interactions with EA folks, a good number of well meaning people in my social circles are into it. I have no issue with radical ideas "outside the window" personally, but often find that EA groups tend to go right for barely workable "grand plans" and often don't listen to the people with boots on the ground, actually doing the work. I'd give specific examples, but it would be doxing myself as many of them are extremely specific.
wing-_-nuts 4y ago
>the secondary order effects will last longer than primary and are very hard to quantify. Yep, scientists already suggest it would disrupt rainfall in the 3rd world. Ironically the same nations that will be the worst hit from global warming regardless. What will India's reaction be when their monsoon rains fail because of the unilateral actions of another country? It's not a good idea to destabilize a nuclear armed nation.

a-user-you-like 4y ago

And it’s like AOC said, we’ve only got 12 years until the planet is dead anyway.