3 ms·

The problem with geo-engineering is that it only treats the symptoms, not the root cause. Treating the symptoms has a side-effect: it lowers the incentive to tr

The problem with geo-engineering is that it only treats the symptoms, not the root cause. Treating the symptoms has a side-effect: it lowers the incentive to treat the cause by making it less pressing. What we want to avoid is not a 1.5 degrees warming, it's a 3 or 4 degrees one. By doing geo-engineering, you could fix the issue in the short time but you would also increase the probability of a bigger problem in the longer term.

Over2Chars 2y ago
What is the non-geo-engineered solution?
- ben_w 2y ago
  Emit less CO2. Does sequestering what has been emitted count as geoengineering? If not, that too; if so, then surely the status quo of emitting it is already geoengineering?
  - Over2Chars 2y ago
    I would assume that anything done by people is geo-engineering. Check out the big red band "China" https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions But, as I noted in another comment, it's misleading since China has absorbed so much manufacturing for other countries, a lot of those products end up in your hands after you get it from Amazon Prime.
    - roelschroeven 2y ago
      Note that China emits a lot less than the US or Canada calculated per capita (from that same page).
      - Over2Chars 2y ago
        Yes, China's 1.4 billion citizens divided by their number 1 status as a carbon emitter, means that they produce less co2 than the USAs 345 million divided by it's (relatively) lower total emissions. But as I pointed out, there is likely misleading: the US (and other nations) buy lots of goods from China effectively shifting coal emissions from the US to China by having them made there. If the US were purchasing 100% US made goods, per capita co2 in the US might be much much higher
        ben_w 2y ago
        No need to hypothesise, it's been calculated: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/imported-or-exported-co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/imported-or-exported-co-e... China is essentially importing ~1 GT of emissions, and the USA is essentially exporting 0.56 GT of emissions. The USA would emit about 10% more and China about 10% less if all manufacturing was local; but that would mean the USA per capita emissions would go up to 16.5 tons per capita from 14.9, while the Chinese per capita emissions would go down to about 7.2 from about 8 tons per capita. (Assuming I read the charts correctly). I aver that none of this matters either, because all of us need to get down to "approximately none" and this kind of thing is just playing a nationalist version of the "no you" game.
        Over2Chars 2y ago
        Cool beans. I guess it's time for the US to kick it's Chinese import addiction, in which it shifts it's addiction to cheap foreign (Chinese) labor fueled by 'clean' coal, and then works to whittle it's own emissions problems down to zero by whatever means necessary.

Over2Chars 2y ago

What is the non-geo-engineered solution?

ben_w 2y ago
Emit less CO2. Does sequestering what has been emitted count as geoengineering? If not, that too; if so, then surely the status quo of emitting it is already geoengineering?
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  I would assume that anything done by people is geo-engineering. Check out the big red band "China" https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions But, as I noted in another comment, it's misleading since China has absorbed so much manufacturing for other countries, a lot of those products end up in your hands after you get it from Amazon Prime.
  - roelschroeven 2y ago
    Note that China emits a lot less than the US or Canada calculated per capita (from that same page).
    - Over2Chars 2y ago
      Yes, China's 1.4 billion citizens divided by their number 1 status as a carbon emitter, means that they produce less co2 than the USAs 345 million divided by it's (relatively) lower total emissions. But as I pointed out, there is likely misleading: the US (and other nations) buy lots of goods from China effectively shifting coal emissions from the US to China by having them made there. If the US were purchasing 100% US made goods, per capita co2 in the US might be much much higher
      - ben_w 2y ago
        No need to hypothesise, it's been calculated: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/imported-or-exported-co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/imported-or-exported-co-e... China is essentially importing ~1 GT of emissions, and the USA is essentially exporting 0.56 GT of emissions. The USA would emit about 10% more and China about 10% less if all manufacturing was local; but that would mean the USA per capita emissions would go up to 16.5 tons per capita from 14.9, while the Chinese per capita emissions would go down to about 7.2 from about 8 tons per capita. (Assuming I read the charts correctly). I aver that none of this matters either, because all of us need to get down to "approximately none" and this kind of thing is just playing a nationalist version of the "no you" game.
        Over2Chars 2y ago
        Cool beans. I guess it's time for the US to kick it's Chinese import addiction, in which it shifts it's addiction to cheap foreign (Chinese) labor fueled by 'clean' coal, and then works to whittle it's own emissions problems down to zero by whatever means necessary.