6 ms·

Quickly: > Or seed the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide That's not solving the situation, that's temporarily mitigating some effects with poisons for a short te

• mpweiher 3y ago
  >> SO2 seeding > That's not solving the situation, that's temporarily mitigating some effects Yep, I clearly identified this is a temporary mitigating measure to buy us time for the real solution, which is the following: >> And then we'll have to get crackin' building those nuclear power plants (as well as building out solar and wind and geothermal and tidal and storage). But it is a mitigating measure that will work and will allow us to get to the actual solution, which is rapidly building out nuclear power (and others). And of course, if you know that this scenario is possible, then you probably also start to understand why governments aren't as panicky about the whole situation as you seem to be. And yes, the mitigation is for the most immediate short-term effect, the rise in temperature. We will still have to get the Carbon out of the atmosphere, for example to avoid Ocean acidification. But we have more time for that. And it will likely need quite a bit of energy (see the nukes). And no, not going to listen to 30 minutes of someone ranting about the collapse of civilisation. We had the club of Rome with the same message in the 70s, and they were comically wrong. If there is something of actual substance, please make the point yourself here. So far you haven't. In particular, I am still waiting for even a hint of shadow of an argument how building out nuclear power and other non-fossil energy sources, while at the same time mitigating the worst effects of global warming, will get us to a pre-industrial society.
  • myshpa 3y ago
    > And of course, if you know that this scenario is possible, then you probably also start to understand why governments aren't as panicky about the whole situation as you seem to be. So not ecosystems restoration (habitats restoration, reforestation and afforestation, wetlands restoration, streams and rivers restoration, sustainable land management, conservation and protected areas, plant-based diets, ...), but attempts at geoengineering with aerosols like sulfur dioxide, or mirrors in space, or whitening the clouds. The potential problems are enormous. Solar radiation management is also an ungovernable technology. Even if we knew how to reflect the sun's rays, that means deciding on what is an international "best temperature". So what if cooling down the US means massive drought in China? What if China deploying this causes rainfall in India to drop? The Earth's climate is interconnected and block the sun's rays in one area affects another. It seems obvious to me that this technology could cause massive conflict (violent maybe) over what is the best way to use it. Anything to avoid doing the right thing. > We had the club of Rome with the same message in the 70s, and they were comically wrong There you're wrong again. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332655753_Limits_Revisited-A_review_of_the_limits_to_growth_debate_A_report_to_the_All-Party_Parliamentary_Group_on_LImits_to_Growth https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332655753_Limits_Re... "We unravel the arguments that have raged for forty years in its aftermath and explore more recent findings which relate to the original hypothesis. There is unsettling evidence that society is still following the ‘standard run’ of the original study – in which overshoot leads to an eventual collapse of production and living standards. Detailed recent studies suggests that production of some key resources may only be decades away. Certain other limits to growth – less visible in the 1972 report – present equally pressing challenges to modern society. We highlight, in particular, recent work on our proximity to ‘planetary boundaries’ and illustrate this through the challenge of meeting the Paris Agreement on climate change. We also explore the economic challenge of a ‘secular stagnation’. If the Club of Rome is right, the next few decades are decisive." https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-16/revisiting-the-limits-to-growth/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-16/revisiting-the... https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2021/yale-publication.pdf https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2021/y... "I conducted a data update to Limits to Growth (LtG), best known from the 1972 bestseller that forecasted a scenario of global societal collapse occurring around the present time if humanity did not alter its priorities. Empirical data comparisons since then indicated that the world was still heading for collapse. My objectives were to examine whether this was still the case based on the most recent data, and whether there was opportunity left to change that trajectory. My research benefited from improved data availability, and included a scenario and two variables that had not been part of previous comparisons. I collected data from academia, (non- )government agencies, United Nations entities, and the World Bank. This was plotted along four LtG scenarios spanning a range of technological, resource, and societal assumptions. From these graphs and two quantitative accuracy measures, I found that the scenarios aligned closely with observed global data, which is a testament to the LtG work done decades ago. The two scenarios aligning most closely indicate a halt in growth over the next decade or so, which puts into question the usability of continuous growth as humanity’s goal in the 21st century. Both scenarios also indicate subsequent declines, but only one—the scenario in which declines are caused by pollution, including greenhouse gas pollution—depicts a collapse pattern. The scenario with the smallest declines aligned least with empirical data, however, absolute differences were rarely big and sometimes insignificant. This suggests that it’s almost, but not yet, too late for society to change course." > If there is something of actual substance, please make the point yourself here You're the one who should decide whether to stay ignorant or learn more on your own. You can't reasonably expect that someone will compress such complex and diverse topics into few social media comments. Few hours of attention and learning could possibly completely change your viewpoint ;) > how building out nuclear power and other non-fossil energy sources I'm not against that, and I'd tend to agree with you on that. But there are people who are more knowledgeable about energy (i'm more interested in biodiversity and agriculture) and more sceptical of the idea / possibility. One of them is Sid Smith ... you'd find those arguments in a well known talk of his https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8