3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoThe 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.