4 ms·
I think this is misleading -- geoengineering + social change will be necessary. You're not going to Scotty your way out of climate change.
by KerrAvon 2y ago
I think this is misleading -- geoengineering + social change will be necessary. You're not going to Scotty your way out of climate change.
- ambicapter 2y agoWhat's misleading here? He was using that as an example of usage of the word 'expedient', not actually suggesting climate change solutions.
- samplatt 2y agoA lot of people in this thread seem to think OP was suggesting that geoengineering is a possible way forward right now, when they were just positing it as an example.
- groestl 2y agoSince OP provided a different example, an expedient solution would be to edit OPs post and remove that paragraph about geoengineering, and delete all comments referring to it.
- adastra22 2y agoWhy not? Really, why not? If we had a profitable way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere at scale, to deacidify the oceans, clean up toxic waste, etc., what would be left? How would that not solve the problem?
- downWidOutaFite 2y agowhy are you fantasizing? none of that is going exist (caveat: unless we figure out infinite clean energy).
- adastra22 2y agoIt’s not fantasy. I’m working on a startup to enable this technology. It’s a hard problem, but not impossible. And the energy needs are not as great as you think. A relatively small patch of the Sahara or Gobi desert or open ocean would be sufficient.
- downWidOutaFite 2y agoYou might need to panel over the whole Sahara: https://www.wired.com/story/the-stupendous-energy-cost-of-direct-air-capture/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-stupendous-energy-cost-of-di...
- adastra22 2y agoMuch less than the whole Sahara.
- Log_out_ 2y agoits indistinguishable from fantasy extrapolating from the given track record . Previous fantasy technology break through like harbor bosch were viable only "after" major diaasters and worldwars and brought with them ever more destructive hidden costs.
- adastra22 2y agoHaber-Bosch predates the world wars.
- Log_out_ 2y agoBut was only usefull with free trade guarantees by a sea empire. In colonial empire times it might aswell have been alchemy to make free cheese on the moon.
- adastra22 2y agoI am confused. Haber-Bosch was developed to work around the need for free trade guarantees. There was enough nitrates in Chile for the foreseeable future in 1911, but Germany wanted a local source of fertilizer to remove their foreign dependency.
- Hasu 2y agoNo technology has been invented that doesn't have costs and tradeoffs. Technology that deacidifies the oceans will have other costs, other externalities that we cannot predict now. Determining how we want to deal with those costs/tradeoffs is a social problem, not a technical problem. Technical know-how can only inform us about the what tradeoffs are available, it can't tell us what we prefer.
- adastra22 2y agoThe ion pumps enabled by the technology we are working on won’t have external effects. They basically just filter out certain small molecules from the ocean into crystal storage.
- thfuran 2y agoWhat kind of flow rate would be necessary to pull CO2 out of the ocean faster than it dissolves from the air, and is that achievable without affecting the surroundings?
- adastra22 2y agoCO2 wouldn’t be pulled out of the ocean. You’d have to liquify it from air in a different process. The molecular pumps are used to extract dissolved ions or solutes from sea water and only act as fast as diffusion.
- einpoklum 2y agoBecause it's a distraction. Global warming and other environmental crises are unfolding right now. While exploring possible future technological advances which would make coping with it easier is certainly a positive and useful pursuit - it cannot be the _main_ pursuit when facing those crises and challenges. That is: 1. We should not divert the discussion from present to possible fortuitous futures. 2. We must not confuse action with prospects. 3. We must not think of the two as "either-or". We can reduce emissions _and_ do R&D for new tech possibilities.
- adastra22 2y agoThere are plenty of examples of technological advances that in one fell swoop entirely eliminate a class of societal problems. Haber-Bosch, for example, completely eliminated famine as a barrier to world populations growth. Penicillin and vaccines eliminated entire categories of terminal disease. We don’t NEED to reduce emissions. So long as we clean up as much or more than we pollute, what’s the problem?
- einpoklum 2y agoThose are poor, poor examples; but before examining them - I can simply refer you to my previous comment. You are doing exactly the three things I caution against: Attempting to divert the discussion, confusing prospective futures with reality, and reinforcing a supposed dichotomy. As for the examples: * For every example of a technological advance that eliminated a class of societal problems, there are five examples of advances which didn't, and untold examples of advances which just never happened (or never happened the way they were expected to). Where is our transmutation of led to gold? Airships? Or Dennard scaling for that matter? No use writing efficient software, our computers will just get faster and it'll be fine. > Haber-Bosch, for example, completely eliminated famine as a barrier to world populations growth. And we (= humans) now have to work hard, and suffer through all sorts of problems, to establish barriers to population growth, and to cope with the resource use pressure of the huge population on the Earth. Not to mention - * Famines are alive as well. * Massive energy requirement; and once the population is up - you can't just give this agriculture-industrial choice and let people starve. * More industrialized economies able to produce a lot more than less-industrialized/poorer economies and areas, exacerbating all sorts of power dynamics, e.g. agricultural "dumping" and mass destitution of peasants who become unable to compete, without a transition having been planned. * Some detrimental environmental effects. That's not to say this process shouldn't be used - it's just that it's not a panacea. > Penicillin and vaccines eliminated entire categories of terminal disease. They did not. They reduced the fatality rates significantly, for a long period of time - which, apparently, may be drawing to an end over the next few decades: https://www.wired.com/story/antibiotics-resistance-useless-paratek-pharmaceuticals/ https://www.wired.com/story/antibiotics-resistance-useless-p... but even if that doesn't quite happen - antibiotics have absolutely _not_ : * Reduced the need to Keep medical environments clean, carefully sterilize tools, wear gloves and "scrubs" etc. when treating patients. * Made it uninteresting or unimportant to avoid mass infections - even those amenable to treatment with Penicillin or vaccines * Reduce interest or prevalence of other forms of treatment of germs and viruses which are amenable to Penicillin or vaccines.
- CM30 2y agoThe technical solution is the only practical solution. People aren't gonna give up a large percentage of their lifestyle for the sake of some greater 'good', especially not if their leaders and influencers seem to have zero interest in doing the same. And anyone trying otherwise will struggle significantly at the polls. Mass carbon removal, renewable energy, recycling and maybe some technological solutions to limit the effects of atmospheric carbon seem like the more practical way to go.
- capitainenemo 2y agosun shields? There's some testing of those going on right now. You wouldn't need a huge reduction in sunlight either. Not enough to impact plants.
- capitainenemo 2y agoI see this got downvoted. Maybe a citation would have helped. https://www.space.com/sunshade-earth-orbit-climate-change https://www.space.com/sunshade-earth-orbit-climate-change