4 ms·

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 clim

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.

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.