5 ms·

The prevailing view right now appears to be that limiting CO2 is no longer sufficient.

by slothtrop 3y ago

askvictor 3y ago
Yes. But one danger is once we start geoengineering, people will give up on trying to limit carbon emissions
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  There's no way geoengineering will be consequence free. I think when we start using it as a temporary measure it will become very clear what the downsides are, and that reducing our emissions are still the best path forward. I just don't buy the apocalyptic doomerism so breathlessly described in most books on global warming. When it gets bad enough, we will act. It won't be ideal, but there's no way we're just going to sit by, accept our fate and let the world burn.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    The assumption here is that when it gets really bad we will still be able to act. The problem is that the earth system is incredibly complex and may be able to absorb a lot of energy in ways that aren’t easy to reverse (at least in ways that are comfortable to humans.) There’s a reason we call these things “tipping points”: like unbalancing a piece of heavy furniture, you might not have the strength to catch it once it’s gone past a certain point.
  - gilmore606 3y ago
    > I think when we start using it as a temporary measure it will become very clear what the downsides are It seems more likely we won't know the downsides until the damage is done, which is what happened with using fossil fuels in the first place.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  The only factor that has any bearing is whether total emissions drop to an acceptable level, and are projected to continue doing so. Under such a scenario, "trying to" limit carbon emission would be a moot point. There is no reason to believe geoengineering in itself would lead to people throwing up their hands at the problem. The entire point is to aggressively lower emissions. Notwithstanding, this is already a solved problem for the long-run, just not the short-run. Renewables are heavily invested and improve in efficiency and cost perpetually. Battery/storage is also improving. Even previously non-abatable tech is starting to see emission-free innovation and nuclear is helping bridge the gap (or should). The issue is that demand for fossil fuels in East Asia is growing faster than innovation lowers it. I agree however that we don't have time to wait for the downcurve to play out naturally through the market. Some level of policy may still be required to both limit fossil fuel use and accelerate adoption of alternatives. This is an imminent problem that will cost billions and some lives.
- amitp 3y ago
  This is called "moral hazard", and it is something to consider. Yes, moral hazard is a danger, but doing nothing is also a danger. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622001608?dgcid=coauthor https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

The prevailing view right now appears to be that limiting CO2 is no longer sufficient.

askvictor 3y ago

Yes. But one danger is once we start geoengineering, people will give up on trying to limit carbon emissions

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
There's no way geoengineering will be consequence free. I think when we start using it as a temporary measure it will become very clear what the downsides are, and that reducing our emissions are still the best path forward. I just don't buy the apocalyptic doomerism so breathlessly described in most books on global warming. When it gets bad enough, we will act. It won't be ideal, but there's no way we're just going to sit by, accept our fate and let the world burn.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  The assumption here is that when it gets really bad we will still be able to act. The problem is that the earth system is incredibly complex and may be able to absorb a lot of energy in ways that aren’t easy to reverse (at least in ways that are comfortable to humans.) There’s a reason we call these things “tipping points”: like unbalancing a piece of heavy furniture, you might not have the strength to catch it once it’s gone past a certain point.
- gilmore606 3y ago
  > I think when we start using it as a temporary measure it will become very clear what the downsides are It seems more likely we won't know the downsides until the damage is done, which is what happened with using fossil fuels in the first place.
slothtrop 3y ago
The only factor that has any bearing is whether total emissions drop to an acceptable level, and are projected to continue doing so. Under such a scenario, "trying to" limit carbon emission would be a moot point. There is no reason to believe geoengineering in itself would lead to people throwing up their hands at the problem. The entire point is to aggressively lower emissions. Notwithstanding, this is already a solved problem for the long-run, just not the short-run. Renewables are heavily invested and improve in efficiency and cost perpetually. Battery/storage is also improving. Even previously non-abatable tech is starting to see emission-free innovation and nuclear is helping bridge the gap (or should). The issue is that demand for fossil fuels in East Asia is growing faster than innovation lowers it. I agree however that we don't have time to wait for the downcurve to play out naturally through the market. Some level of policy may still be required to both limit fossil fuel use and accelerate adoption of alternatives. This is an imminent problem that will cost billions and some lives.
amitp 3y ago
This is called "moral hazard", and it is something to consider. Yes, moral hazard is a danger, but doing nothing is also a danger. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622001608?dgcid=coauthor https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]