4 ms·

In The Vanishing Face of Gaia James Lovelock theorizes that geoengineering would trigger a cascading effect of problems, much like a a sick patient on an ever i

by AJ007 14y ago

In The Vanishing Face of Gaia James Lovelock theorizes that geoengineering would trigger a cascading effect of problems, much like a a sick patient on an ever increasing regimen of prescription medications, each solving one problem while causing three. While other portions of the book are questionable, I tend to agree with this analogy. The best case would be for the environment to re-balance itself -- of course, human cause or not, our environment is not static and is destined to continual change. Unfortunately James Lovelock's worst case scenario is an earth which is capable of producing enough food to support single digit percentages of the world's current population. That is a pretty brutal death sentence for the current state of human civilization.

rdl 14y ago
There are changes humans make to the environment which do make it better (at least for humans) -- building dams on rivers which otherwise flood periodically, culling wood and undergrowth to keep large-scale forest fires from happening, etc. There are environmental costs to each of those, but the benefits (direct and economic) far outweigh them, and stuff like salmon ladders, helicopter transport, etc. can deal with some of the harm. The best long-term outcome for humanity is to use capitalism and science/technology to generate as much wealth as possible AND do as little damage to the environment as possible, but I think the "have a much lighter footprint and generate less wealth" option is off the table -- it's not going to be acceptable to generate less wealth than we have now, so really the most favorable outcome is to try to scale the wealth generation up faster than the harm done, and then use some wealth to ameliorate specific severe problems.
- oelewapperke 14y ago
  I don't think you can have it both ways. Either we can predict the effect of things on the environment (co2, and other things we could use for geoengineering), or we cannot. If you believe we cannot predict and prevent cascading problems or adapt to them then you're the same thing as a climate change denier, since who's to say that we got the cascading effect of co2 increase right ? If you believe we can predict those consequences, then geoengineering will allow the human race to take control of the climate. So the problem of climate change becomes the problem of finding the set of consequences we like best. Climate change becomes a problem similar to animals digging holes in a dam : an inconvenience to be monitored, but nothing more. This ignores political problems of course. Geoengineering would make one hell of a weapon of war, for example. China, given it's coastline, might choose to raise the sea level by 5 meters with little consequence for them, but major US population centers would become unliveable (New York, San Francisco), as would many European cities. Geoengineering, used like that, can do far more damage than 5000 nukes could.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  I agree that "generate less wealth" is a non-starter. Any political efforts down that road are wasting time, in my opinion. And if you think this is an important issue, why waste time on something that's not going to happen? It does seem likely we can have a somewhat lighter footprint, or at least a more efficient one. The problem that lurks down that path is that if energy became more efficient it's possible people will just use more to do more, and the end result stays the same or even increases. So I do think things like geoengineering and adapting to the changes have to be on the table. It's getting to a point where it seems irresponsible to not be exploring those options more fully.
- rdl 14y ago
  oelewapperke: you seem to have become hellbanned (the first 2-3 pages of your comments look reasonable, too, so I think it happened in ancient times.) I agree -- it's a big deal, but we have great natural experiments for some forms of geoengineering. Sulfur in the air is pretty well understood due to volcanos, with the main effects being cooling and some seriously awesome sunsets. It happens quickly, so if we wait a decade or two (with or without CO2 reductions), and see that climate change is causing clear problems, it is probably time to do the sulfur. Our understanding is only getting better every year, so delaying action makes some sense. The most economically efficient thing is probably a moderate reduction in CO2, extreme reduction in point sources of pollution, and continuing to observe. Extreme cuts to CO2 would cause enough economic problems that they would be worse than the cure, and doing nothing at all seems like it has a higher expected cost, based on the evidence available today, than doing a moderate amount. Some things we can do are not really restricted to reducing CO2 -- making cars more efficient in general saves money, reduces other much more direct and observable forms of pollution (local air pollution), etc. A few other specific fixes (cement production, agriculture, replacing coal with natural gas, ...) also seem prudent and overall cost savings, at least if done at the right time in capital equipment replacement lifecycle.

by AJ007 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

There are changes humans make to the environment which do make it better (at least for humans) -- building dams on rivers which otherwise flood periodically, culling wood and undergrowth to keep large-scale forest fires from happening, etc. There are environmental costs to each of those, but the benefits (direct and economic) far outweigh them, and stuff like salmon ladders, helicopter transport, etc. can deal with some of the harm. The best long-term outcome for humanity is to use capitalism and science/technology to generate as much wealth as possible AND do as little damage to the environment as possible, but I think the "have a much lighter footprint and generate less wealth" option is off the table -- it's not going to be acceptable to generate less wealth than we have now, so really the most favorable outcome is to try to scale the wealth generation up faster than the harm done, and then use some wealth to ameliorate specific severe problems.

oelewapperke 14y ago
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either we can predict the effect of things on the environment (co2, and other things we could use for geoengineering), or we cannot. If you believe we cannot predict and prevent cascading problems or adapt to them then you're the same thing as a climate change denier, since who's to say that we got the cascading effect of co2 increase right ? If you believe we can predict those consequences, then geoengineering will allow the human race to take control of the climate. So the problem of climate change becomes the problem of finding the set of consequences we like best. Climate change becomes a problem similar to animals digging holes in a dam : an inconvenience to be monitored, but nothing more. This ignores political problems of course. Geoengineering would make one hell of a weapon of war, for example. China, given it's coastline, might choose to raise the sea level by 5 meters with little consequence for them, but major US population centers would become unliveable (New York, San Francisco), as would many European cities. Geoengineering, used like that, can do far more damage than 5000 nukes could.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
I agree that "generate less wealth" is a non-starter. Any political efforts down that road are wasting time, in my opinion. And if you think this is an important issue, why waste time on something that's not going to happen? It does seem likely we can have a somewhat lighter footprint, or at least a more efficient one. The problem that lurks down that path is that if energy became more efficient it's possible people will just use more to do more, and the end result stays the same or even increases. So I do think things like geoengineering and adapting to the changes have to be on the table. It's getting to a point where it seems irresponsible to not be exploring those options more fully.
rdl 14y ago
oelewapperke: you seem to have become hellbanned (the first 2-3 pages of your comments look reasonable, too, so I think it happened in ancient times.) I agree -- it's a big deal, but we have great natural experiments for some forms of geoengineering. Sulfur in the air is pretty well understood due to volcanos, with the main effects being cooling and some seriously awesome sunsets. It happens quickly, so if we wait a decade or two (with or without CO2 reductions), and see that climate change is causing clear problems, it is probably time to do the sulfur. Our understanding is only getting better every year, so delaying action makes some sense. The most economically efficient thing is probably a moderate reduction in CO2, extreme reduction in point sources of pollution, and continuing to observe. Extreme cuts to CO2 would cause enough economic problems that they would be worse than the cure, and doing nothing at all seems like it has a higher expected cost, based on the evidence available today, than doing a moderate amount. Some things we can do are not really restricted to reducing CO2 -- making cars more efficient in general saves money, reduces other much more direct and observable forms of pollution (local air pollution), etc. A few other specific fixes (cement production, agriculture, replacing coal with natural gas, ...) also seem prudent and overall cost savings, at least if done at the right time in capital equipment replacement lifecycle.