5 ms·
> We need to be investing in solutions that could actually work, like stratospheric aerosol injection The problem with aerosol injection is that it doesn't act
by tzs 1y ago
> We need to be investing in solutions that could actually work, like stratospheric aerosol injection
The problem with aerosol injection is that it doesn't actually lower CO2 levels. It just adds a cooling effect that can counter the CO2 warming effect. The aerosols don't stay in the stratosphere long so you need to be regularly injecting more.
If you stop those regular injections the warming quickly comes back.
If we have a strong plan to reach near net zero CO2 emissions in some given timeframe and we really can stick to it then adding aerosol injections so that we can stop the warming sooner might be OK.
If we don't have that there is a good chance that some large emitters will decide that since the aerosol injections are holding warming at bay there is no reason to not increase emissions as much as they want. Most will acknowledge that we should reduce emissions, but with no immediate consequences they will put it off.
Then in a few decades if something disrupts the regular aerosol injects we could get decades worth of warming over a few months.
That would not be good.
- modeless 1y agoEmitting CO2 is not morally wrong in an abstract sense. It is only bad to the extent that it has bad effects. The major bad effect is warming. If that is mitigated, then the need to reduce CO2 emissions is legitimately lower and that's OK! The other bad effects of CO2 emissions are less bad than warming. The only really concerning one at realistic CO2 concentrations is ocean acidification, and there may be other ways to address that too. Human CO2 emissions will eventually decline naturally due to the meteoric rise of solar and the eventual exhaustion of economical sources of fossil fuels. We can't increase fossil fuel consumption forever, and CO2 will not continue to rise forever. But it will rise to a point where we will need to implement a proactive solution for warming, regardless of what the EU does or doesn't do. Pretending that emissions reductions alone are going to save the world is doing everyone a disservice.
- croes 1y agoCO2 emission reduction is the easiest way and we already fail at that. What makes you think we‘ll do better at more complex solutions?
- modeless 1y agoCO2 emission reduction is the hardest way. It requires coordinating most of the humans in the world to act in a way that disadvantages them, while anyone who defects gets an advantage. A solution that can be unilaterally implemented by a small minority is much, much easier. Solving technical problems is much easier than changing human nature, which is in fact impossible.
- croes 1y agoWe know what happens when we reduce carbon dioxide emissions. What you call technical problems could mean global disaster if we make a mistake or overlook a side effect.