3 ms·

I think it's weird that people react so negatively to geoengineering when the status quo is that we're changing the climate adversely just by thoughtless inacti

by elihu 3y ago

I think it's weird that people react so negatively to geoengineering when the status quo is that we're changing the climate adversely just by thoughtless inaction with respect to reducing CO2 emissions. I do agree with the sentiment though that solar radiation management doesn't actually solve anything in the long run. We need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in large quantities and raise the pH of the ocean, and SRM does neither -- it just buys time for modern civilization. I think we should study SRM because we're going to do it anyways eventually -- I don't see a plausible future where we don't. At the same time I feel like we don't have the moral authority to smash the snooze bar one more time unless we're actually doing as much as we can to cut back on CO2 emissions. Maybe a fair policy is to have an international treaty that says: no country is allowed to do SRM or have any say in how it's performed unless they've actually become carbon neutral. But then maybe that's too rigorous a standard and no one will meet it.

SuoDuanDao 3y ago
I'd have a much less rigorous standard that I'd bet is still too rigorous for the project to go ahead - everyone actually working on the project would need to be able to demonstrate understanding of 'fat tail' risks to the satisfaction of Nassim Taleb or someone he designates. I'd bet that anyone who can do so wouldn't want to work on the project, except possibly as a grift. Which I'd honestly be fine with, given the people choosing to fund it.
scythe 3y ago
>I think it's weird that people react so negatively to geoengineering when the status quo is that we're changing the climate adversely just by thoughtless inaction with respect to reducing CO2 emissions. One of the problems with deliberate geoengineering, as opposed to accidental geoengineering (CO2 release), is that it's a lot easier to assign responsibility. There will be countries that benefit from climate change. Particularly likely cases include Russia, where winters become milder and growing seasons longer, and Saudi Arabia, where precipitation will significantly increase. There will also be major losers, like Mexico, where precipitation will decline and coastal heat will become lethal. In addition, there will probably be countries disproportionately affected by the side-effects of geoengineering. Decreased sunlight will affect agriculture — the largest players being US, India, China — and sulfur deposition likely will as well. The world can hardly agree on such obvious necessities as "don't catch all the fish in the ocean".
joshuanapoli 3y ago
Deliberate geoengineering will probably be designed to be faster effect then our accidental emissions. We’ve had generations to notice that we’re changing the atmosphere and that this may have noticeable affects. Geoengineering will probably leave less time for adapting to any its consequences.
- toss1 3y ago
  Yes, but there may be huge differences in how it is done that may allow for rapid change. E.g., orbital reflector systems could be "turned off" within hours, or rapidly degrading reflective atmospheric pollutants could be reversed at the rate of decay, perhaps months. Of course, the advantage of any solution that will not degrade for decades is lower maintenance costs, but... Seems the ability to reverse or tune any solution should be a critical factor in selecting a geoengineering project.
theptip 3y ago
I think you can trace that weirdness all the way down to the act/omission doctrine underlying Judeo-Christian ethical systems; in most situations it is considered way worse to cause harm by action than by inaction. I do like the “we are already doing geoengineering” angle, it flips the narrative a bit. But I think people will still find the cases to be very different; at the end of the day nobody’s goal with emitting CO2 is climate change, it’s just a side-effect. Vs the explicit goal of (positive) climate change with geoengineering.
fwungy 3y ago
CO2 has been a constant part of the atmosphere at 0.01-0.05% forever. The atmosphere is sensitive to small changes. So what might introducing new particles to the atmosphere do? What could possibly go wrong with this irreversible experiment?

by elihu 3y ago

SuoDuanDao 3y ago

I'd have a much less rigorous standard that I'd bet is still too rigorous for the project to go ahead - everyone actually working on the project would need to be able to demonstrate understanding of 'fat tail' risks to the satisfaction of Nassim Taleb or someone he designates. I'd bet that anyone who can do so wouldn't want to work on the project, except possibly as a grift. Which I'd honestly be fine with, given the people choosing to fund it.

scythe 3y ago

>I think it's weird that people react so negatively to geoengineering when the status quo is that we're changing the climate adversely just by thoughtless inaction with respect to reducing CO2 emissions. One of the problems with deliberate geoengineering, as opposed to accidental geoengineering (CO2 release), is that it's a lot easier to assign responsibility. There will be countries that benefit from climate change. Particularly likely cases include Russia, where winters become milder and growing seasons longer, and Saudi Arabia, where precipitation will significantly increase. There will also be major losers, like Mexico, where precipitation will decline and coastal heat will become lethal. In addition, there will probably be countries disproportionately affected by the side-effects of geoengineering. Decreased sunlight will affect agriculture — the largest players being US, India, China — and sulfur deposition likely will as well. The world can hardly agree on such obvious necessities as "don't catch all the fish in the ocean".

joshuanapoli 3y ago

Deliberate geoengineering will probably be designed to be faster effect then our accidental emissions. We’ve had generations to notice that we’re changing the atmosphere and that this may have noticeable affects. Geoengineering will probably leave less time for adapting to any its consequences.

toss1 3y ago
Yes, but there may be huge differences in how it is done that may allow for rapid change. E.g., orbital reflector systems could be "turned off" within hours, or rapidly degrading reflective atmospheric pollutants could be reversed at the rate of decay, perhaps months. Of course, the advantage of any solution that will not degrade for decades is lower maintenance costs, but... Seems the ability to reverse or tune any solution should be a critical factor in selecting a geoengineering project.

theptip 3y ago

I think you can trace that weirdness all the way down to the act/omission doctrine underlying Judeo-Christian ethical systems; in most situations it is considered way worse to cause harm by action than by inaction. I do like the “we are already doing geoengineering” angle, it flips the narrative a bit. But I think people will still find the cases to be very different; at the end of the day nobody’s goal with emitting CO2 is climate change, it’s just a side-effect. Vs the explicit goal of (positive) climate change with geoengineering.

fwungy 3y ago

CO2 has been a constant part of the atmosphere at 0.01-0.05% forever. The atmosphere is sensitive to small changes. So what might introducing new particles to the atmosphere do? What could possibly go wrong with this irreversible experiment?