4 ms·

Most of the environmentalists I hang out with are on board with most of those ideas, myself included. (And also carbon taxation, which incentivizes a bunch of

Most of the environmentalists I hang out with are on board with most of those ideas, myself included. (And also carbon taxation, which incentivizes a bunch of them) Geo-engineering is a tough one, and I think should be viewed as a last resort, once we're already well on our way to decarbonizing, because otherwise it's the equivalent of trying to stop a speeding car by pressing the brakes without taking your foot off the gas. Something like releasing particulates may cool the earth, but is really hard to do reliably and accurately, and if you ever stop, you're in for a large amount of very sudden warming. There's also a moral hazard effect. It's not fixing the problems, it's trying to treat the symptoms. That said, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it, I just want to make sure we're at least also attacking the root causes as hard as we can as well.

_hypx 3y ago
If you're referring to nuclear, that only happened recently. Before, environmentalists had done more to stop zero emissions energy than to promote it. Geoengineering is likely to be the same type of fight. We pretty much have to do it. There's no way around it at this point. It's biggest enemy are environmentalists who demand ideological purity. It's heading towards the same story as anti-nuclearism. It should also be noted that people who are pro-nuclear or pro-geoengineering are not fanatics and are not obsessed with their ideas in the way radical environmentalists are. No one is suggesting that they replace all other ideas. Radical environmentalists who suggest that is the case are basically projecting. As if their opponents are as crazy as they are with their ideas.