5 ms·

Is there any reason I shouldn't be for climate engineering (e.g. spreading sulfates into the atmosphere) today? In my mind, that has moved quickly from, "We pro

Is there any reason I shouldn't be for climate engineering (e.g. spreading sulfates into the atmosphere) today? In my mind, that has moved quickly from, "We probably shouldn't due to unexpected consequences" to "We should've started a few years ago".

mcv 3y ago
Those unexpected consequences could also cause serious problems, and nobody wants to be held responsible for that. If a storm destroys your home because of climate change caused by 8 billion people, it's hard to hold anyone accountable. But if your home is destroyed because one organisation decided to block out the sun, suddenly someone is responsible.
- avisser 3y ago
  I understand that it's a tragedy of the commons for how we got here. To clarify, I think you're saying fear of reprisal is why we haven't seen intentional climate engineering. I don't think you're saying it's immoral or a bad idea.
  - mcv 3y ago
    Yeah, I'm not saying it's immoral or a bad idea, I'm saying it's legally very complicated. It could be a bad idea, of course. It could also be the only solution that's fast enough. And not doing anything is also a bad idea. But not doing anything is at least legally uncomplicated. Though I have heard of one geo-engineering experiment: seeding a piece of ocean with iron or iron oxide, which caused an algae bloom, which caused a spike in the number of salmon in the area. The idea is that the algae bloom absorbs a lot of CO2. But the person behind it didn't have any permission for this experiment and was widely criticised for being irresponsible. I hope scientists paid attention to the results, though.
  - throwaway5752 3y ago
    Since almost all life on earth derives from photosynthesis, reducing insolation is very risky. Anyone that confidently asserts how it works suffers from not being informed enough to be worried. If humanity start doing releasing SO2 to reduce insolation, but not reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, then the climate would be a coiled spring. CO2 sequestration operates on decade or century timeframes and SO2 released into the upper atmosphere is removed from the atmosphere in weeks to years. If humanity kept releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases at current rates, but couldn't continue releasing SO2 for some reason, speaking plainly, we would be all be truly fucked in a very short period of time. It is immoral and and a bad idea. We can get to carbon targets to solve this issue instead like scientists dedicated to this problem have been consistently saying for decades, but the USA's wealth derives from oil and excessive driving. So we are lied to and told that it isn't feasible.
- thatguy0900 3y ago
  I think it's even worse than that. What happens when India makes some more rainfall and China enters a drought? That's the stuff that starts wars.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
If you are not also "for" all the boring basic stuff like "stop paying people to release GHG into the atmosphere" then specifically supporting that one policy probably marks you out as a sucker who has absorbed the propaganda of the people who got us into this mess. But as long as you support all the easier to implement solutions too, it's no big deal to add that one extra one.
- avisser 3y ago
  I'm for reducing greenhouse gases in the environment, just skeptical beyond belief that it'll happen before big, nasty consequences hit us.
marssaxman 3y ago
Imagine that your friend who got into methamphetamine a while back has graduated from doing a bump before going out on Saturday night to snorting fat lines for breakfast, and some more before dinner, and now it's "oh, hell, midnight on a Tuesday already, why don't we just stay up all night again". Their ideas are getting weird, they're starting to feel the toll relentless insomnia takes, they can see the crash coming, they know - deep down - that they really ought to stop, and then they ask: "any reason I shouldn't just start knocking myself out with Xanax every night so I can sleep?" What do you tell them?

mcv 3y ago

Those unexpected consequences could also cause serious problems, and nobody wants to be held responsible for that. If a storm destroys your home because of climate change caused by 8 billion people, it's hard to hold anyone accountable. But if your home is destroyed because one organisation decided to block out the sun, suddenly someone is responsible.

avisser 3y ago
I understand that it's a tragedy of the commons for how we got here. To clarify, I think you're saying fear of reprisal is why we haven't seen intentional climate engineering. I don't think you're saying it's immoral or a bad idea.
- mcv 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm not saying it's immoral or a bad idea, I'm saying it's legally very complicated. It could be a bad idea, of course. It could also be the only solution that's fast enough. And not doing anything is also a bad idea. But not doing anything is at least legally uncomplicated. Though I have heard of one geo-engineering experiment: seeding a piece of ocean with iron or iron oxide, which caused an algae bloom, which caused a spike in the number of salmon in the area. The idea is that the algae bloom absorbs a lot of CO2. But the person behind it didn't have any permission for this experiment and was widely criticised for being irresponsible. I hope scientists paid attention to the results, though.
- throwaway5752 3y ago
  Since almost all life on earth derives from photosynthesis, reducing insolation is very risky. Anyone that confidently asserts how it works suffers from not being informed enough to be worried. If humanity start doing releasing SO2 to reduce insolation, but not reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, then the climate would be a coiled spring. CO2 sequestration operates on decade or century timeframes and SO2 released into the upper atmosphere is removed from the atmosphere in weeks to years. If humanity kept releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases at current rates, but couldn't continue releasing SO2 for some reason, speaking plainly, we would be all be truly fucked in a very short period of time. It is immoral and and a bad idea. We can get to carbon targets to solve this issue instead like scientists dedicated to this problem have been consistently saying for decades, but the USA's wealth derives from oil and excessive driving. So we are lied to and told that it isn't feasible.
thatguy0900 3y ago
I think it's even worse than that. What happens when India makes some more rainfall and China enters a drought? That's the stuff that starts wars.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

If you are not also "for" all the boring basic stuff like "stop paying people to release GHG into the atmosphere" then specifically supporting that one policy probably marks you out as a sucker who has absorbed the propaganda of the people who got us into this mess. But as long as you support all the easier to implement solutions too, it's no big deal to add that one extra one.

avisser 3y ago
I'm for reducing greenhouse gases in the environment, just skeptical beyond belief that it'll happen before big, nasty consequences hit us.

marssaxman 3y ago

Imagine that your friend who got into methamphetamine a while back has graduated from doing a bump before going out on Saturday night to snorting fat lines for breakfast, and some more before dinner, and now it's "oh, hell, midnight on a Tuesday already, why don't we just stay up all night again". Their ideas are getting weird, they're starting to feel the toll relentless insomnia takes, they can see the crash coming, they know - deep down - that they really ought to stop, and then they ask: "any reason I shouldn't just start knocking myself out with Xanax every night so I can sleep?" What do you tell them?