8 ms·

The eu is stupid for not engaging in active climate engineering right now. They are the most at risk and should take decisive action before they end up living i

by pfisch 1mo ago

The eu is stupid for not engaging in active climate engineering right now. They are the most at risk and should take decisive action before they end up living in a glacier. All the downvotes are just showing why no action is being taken even though right now we are literally terraforming the planet with no plan, and it is going to stop the transatlantic currents that keep Europe from becoming arctic. But sure, just do nothing until Europe becomes an uninhabitable tundra and it is too late to take action. Great plan.

fchicken 1mo ago
Spoken as if climate engineering were an established science with no potential pitfalls or downsides...
- pfisch 1mo ago
  We are ALREADY doing it. It is already going poorly because we are doing it without any goals. So we can just continue geoengineering with no aim, or we can act with purpose. There is no third option that is realistic.
worik 1mo ago
What could possibly go wrong?
- boxed 1mo ago
  ...with the current approach? We already know. It's bad.
Muromec 1mo ago
Western democracies at this point can't do anything at that even hints at minimally inconveniencing 5% of the population. Any 5% at that. We are stuck in local maximum even if it slowly and surely slides into the shitter
- drawnwren 1mo ago
  If you look at the derivatives, there is no change a Western Democracy can make that will matter as this plays out.
  - fragmede 1mo ago
    Humanity being saved by China just dumping money into solar because why not, is certainly a take.
    - AlecSchueler 1mo ago
      Because "why not?" Do we understand that humanity includes Chinese people? Do we also understand A) the steps they're already taking to reduce emissions and B) how much of their emissions historically and today are in service of Western consumers?
      - RugnirViking 1mo ago
        i don't accept arguments in the form of B when its a business (our pollution is just serving our customers demand, its their moral responsibility to reduce consumption), and I also don't accept it in country form. centralisation makes centralised opporunity for change. You have all the power, and also all the responsibility.
        AlecSchueler 1mo ago
        > i don't accept arguments in the form of B Feel free to share why not. At the end of the China is still part of a global system dominated by capitalism and they have to play the markets game in order to survive. They could easily fully do things their own way but that would mean, for example, chance of private intellectual property, which would mean no WTO membership, which would mean massively reduced capacity for trade, which would put them at such a disadvantage they'd inevitably collapse.
        1mo ago
sva_ 1mo ago
The EU is not "most at risk" compared to eg south Asia, the middle east, parts of Africa, etc; and this idea that AMOC collapse will turn Europe into a glacier is a blatant exaggeration that does not root itself in reality.
- consumer451 1mo ago
  As someone in Central EU farm land, who is currently experiencing desertification... We are actually in the worst place, given realtive population density. My well is drying up. The Danube and many other rivers are drying up. Then, when the AMOC stops, and we join Canadian weather with English-level insulation... we are all truly fucked in winter. At scale in the mid-term, only Sri Lanka is going to get as screwed as EU citizens, but the EU will get fucked even sooner. Given population numbers, it appears that the EU is totally screwed when it comes to climate change. Our geopolitical enemies are well aware of this fact. There are still things we can do, like insulation, and using our fierce financial pressures to change the world. We just need to wake tf up.
  - tpm 1mo ago
    No we are not in the worst place given relative population density. Look at South & Southeast Asia very carefully - there are countries like Bangladesh with pop. of 177 million in an area of double the Czech Republic (pop. 10 million). They have it much worse than us. > we join Canadian weather with English-level insulation Having lived both in England and here in Slovakia, we are much much better equipped to survive long spells with -10 with occasional dips far below that in lowlands (and obviously our mountainous regions are even better equipped). What we can't deal with yet is the heat and drought like this summer. > using our fierce financial pressures to change the world We are already doing that using for example CBAM. We just have to continue.
    - sph 1mo ago
      What’s population density got to do with worsening climate?
ColdStream 1mo ago
I suspect that unless there is a consensus or at least a large majority in favor of it, nothing will be done. Lets say the EU does geoengineering and then there are crop failures in India the next year. Their fault or not, they are going to get blamed for it and actions taken. The EU would become the scapegoat for any kind of weather/climate issues in future. This is the trolley problem done at a global scale.
- pfisch 1mo ago
  >Lets say the EU does geoengineering and then there are crop failures in India the next year. Who cares? Tell them to go pound sand or stop burning so much coal. Countries are already water seeding. This kind of worry that someone might complain about the eu trying to save itself is so low on the list of things that matter. Let them complain, and the eu can complain about all the other countries geoengineering by burning fossil fuels.
  - ColdStream 1mo ago
    Alas, that kind of bravado doesn't go far. Also what if that complaint comes back in the form of a Nuke as they see it as an act of war? When things become existential, a lot of things that seems unlikely end up on the table as moral corruption sets in. "Either they go or we do!"
    - pepperoni_pizza 1mo ago
      Then they get nuked back and they all die? Like how does that answer means anything?
      - autoexec 1mo ago
        "nuke us and get nuked back" means we all die. Push people to the point where they're dying anyway and they might not see taking you out with them as a bad thing. You're a whole lot safer when the people around you can get enough food and water. We already have solutions that don't involve putting entire nations at risk of dying off in large numbers. The problem is that those solutions would eat into the already massive and growing profits of corporations who would sooner put your safety at risk than take even a small hit to their unsustainable growth.
zamadatix 1mo ago
I don't think that's the popular reasoning those downvoting have taken to. Can you think of reasons other than they think doing nothing sounds like a great plan people might be downvoting about? If not, I could share a few concerns with the approach that come to my mind (if it helps). It would have been nice if more of those people just commented directly instead of downvoting and moving on.
- blooalien 1mo ago
  > It would have been nice if more of those people just commented directly instead of downvoting and moving on. I'll comment directly; Has anyone considered that this is a literal global problem, and that just maybe it might require some global cooperation? Any one nation "most at risk" from a global problem is only "most at risk" temporarily. This is absolutely 1000% a problem that will affect everyone everywhere on this planet soon enough (already is IMHO), no matter the current situation. The longer we continue these childish "but they aren't doing their part" arguments, the worse it's gonna be in the end for everyone involved. We're letting petulant toddlers in grown adult bodies decide for everyone that death and destruction is the future we want. This is absolutely not a situation we can solve on a place-to-place basis. The one place we have to worry about now is the entire planet FFS! And it's not a magical switch we can just "turn off" once we think our "enemies" are appropriately fucked over. The changes happening to our ecosystems will take literal decades or even centuries to recover from, even if we were to stop adding to the problem right this very instant. Not to mention the whole worry about "tipping points" (many of which we've already blown right past as if it's "no big deal").
consumer451 1mo ago
I agree with you. We are actually at huge risk. "Western Civilization" rose out of our stable European climate and that is over now. However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. That's just how that works... the Jet Stream. Meanwhile one country believes that global warming is a benefit, aka Russia. They currently appear to have control of the West.. so what in the actual f? For a far more dire diatribe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427651
- estearum 1mo ago
  Global consensus would be great, but "reliable mechanism" would be a decent start. In lieu of that, there's nothing to build consensus around.
  - eightysixfour 1mo ago
    Atmospheric sulfur seems to be the "default."
    - estearum 1mo ago
      Yes which is an extremely dangerous and completely unproven idea.
    - apothegm 1mo ago
      Because when we did that accidentally the outcomes were so great?
- pfisch 1mo ago
  >However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. Why? Does china or the us need a consensus before taking existential risks like making ai? Or detonating a nuke that had a tiny chance of setting the atmosphere on fire? Or attacking random countries with almost no rationale or plan? This kind of thinking is why the EU is screwed. No other major power cares that much because they aren't at the same level of risk as the eu.
akd 1mo ago
They can't do anything, everything is in China's hands and the EU does not have the hard or soft power to make China do or not do anything.
D_Alex 1mo ago
The EU has made a difficult problem even worse by switching from pipeline gas to LNG. LNG has anywhere from 10% to 100% more greenhouse gas emissions, depending on who you believe about how much methane leaks during LNG production and transport operations. Most credible estimate IMO is +60%.
- maxhille 1mo ago
  Putin turned off the gas, not the EU
  - D_Alex 1mo ago
    Really? Do you have a credible source for this?
    - maxhille 1mo ago
      The Wikipedia article cites a long list of reputable news outlets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Russia%E2%80%93European_Union_gas_dispute#Gas_delivery_disruption,_April_2022_%E2%80%93_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Russia%E2%80...
      - D_Alex 1mo ago
        But it doesn’t support your claim. In summary, Russia, after having their dollar and euro bank accounts frozen, demanded payment in roubles. It stopped supplying the gas to the customers who weren’t paying. After that, the EU announced it will stop buying Russian gas completely, and replaced it with LNG. Thus increasing the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to its gas use by about 60%. :(
        maxhille 1mo ago
        "My" claim: > Putin ("Russia") turned off the gas Your summary: > Russia [...] stopped supplying the gas. [...]
piokoch 1mo ago
Sorry, but what? EU literally destroyed its economy by forcing "green energy", so manufacturing was moved to Asia (who cannot care less about climate and uses whatever cheap energy source thy have so this was a rather stupid move), ETS and ETS-2 systems are putting huge taxes on EU citizens for any kind of emission, including building a house or having non-zero emission flat or house. The "little" problem here is that all of this does not matter at all, as EU is emitting insignificant amount of CO2, comparing to Asia or USA.
leonidasrup 1mo ago
"The EU’s Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra warns that to prevent costs from spiraling further, European governments must start investing massive sums in measures to climate-proof their countries, known as adaptation." https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-climate-adaptation-spending-wopke-hoekstra-wildfires-heat-waves/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-climate-adaptation-spendi...
- chinathrow 1mo ago
  We probabbly must do all three things at once - adapt - stop rising CO2 levels - remove CO2 from the atmosphere
dgellow 1mo ago
It’s far from being only an EU or European issue. It’s not like Europe can by itself do something to avoid the collapse of the Atlantic Gulf Stream.
watwut 1mo ago
EU did a lot and e was willing to harm own economies. Betreyal was from elsewhere.
jurgenburgen 1mo ago
If we can’t even switch away from fossils then where do we get the magical political will to build a massive, untested system that needs constant maintenance indefinitely to keep our environment stable? Our governments don’t seem to even be able to sustain consensus for a single election cycle, active geoengineering projects would require committing to keep doing it for decades, centuries or however long it takes to get back to equilibrium.
- pfisch 1mo ago
  Switching away from fossil fuels is a gigantic ask compared to having some planes release a ton of reflective particles into the atmosphere. It isn't even expensive. 15-30 billion per year would be enough to cause 1 degree Celsius of cooling by having planes put SO2 into the atmosphere. Double that for 2 degrees. That is way less than the EU has given to Ukraine.
  - jurgenburgen 1mo ago
    Quadruple for 4 degrees? Or is the cost exponential? What happens when some right-wing nut jobs take power and decide to kill this woke geoengineering because climate change is just a conspiracy? Will we get to experience decades worth of warming in one go? Meanwhile we just start burning even more fossils because climate change is “solved”? I think we’re not that desperate yet. And whatever geoengineering is done we still need to solve the root cause.

by pfisch 1mo ago

fchicken 1mo ago

Spoken as if climate engineering were an established science with no potential pitfalls or downsides...

pfisch 1mo ago
We are ALREADY doing it. It is already going poorly because we are doing it without any goals. So we can just continue geoengineering with no aim, or we can act with purpose. There is no third option that is realistic.

worik 1mo ago

What could possibly go wrong?

boxed 1mo ago
...with the current approach? We already know. It's bad.

Muromec 1mo ago

Western democracies at this point can't do anything at that even hints at minimally inconveniencing 5% of the population. Any 5% at that. We are stuck in local maximum even if it slowly and surely slides into the shitter

drawnwren 1mo ago
If you look at the derivatives, there is no change a Western Democracy can make that will matter as this plays out.
- fragmede 1mo ago
  Humanity being saved by China just dumping money into solar because why not, is certainly a take.
  - AlecSchueler 1mo ago
    Because "why not?" Do we understand that humanity includes Chinese people? Do we also understand A) the steps they're already taking to reduce emissions and B) how much of their emissions historically and today are in service of Western consumers?
    - RugnirViking 1mo ago
      i don't accept arguments in the form of B when its a business (our pollution is just serving our customers demand, its their moral responsibility to reduce consumption), and I also don't accept it in country form. centralisation makes centralised opporunity for change. You have all the power, and also all the responsibility.
      - AlecSchueler 1mo ago
        > i don't accept arguments in the form of B Feel free to share why not. At the end of the China is still part of a global system dominated by capitalism and they have to play the markets game in order to survive. They could easily fully do things their own way but that would mean, for example, chance of private intellectual property, which would mean no WTO membership, which would mean massively reduced capacity for trade, which would put them at such a disadvantage they'd inevitably collapse.
        1mo ago

sva_ 1mo ago

The EU is not "most at risk" compared to eg south Asia, the middle east, parts of Africa, etc; and this idea that AMOC collapse will turn Europe into a glacier is a blatant exaggeration that does not root itself in reality.

consumer451 1mo ago
As someone in Central EU farm land, who is currently experiencing desertification... We are actually in the worst place, given realtive population density. My well is drying up. The Danube and many other rivers are drying up. Then, when the AMOC stops, and we join Canadian weather with English-level insulation... we are all truly fucked in winter. At scale in the mid-term, only Sri Lanka is going to get as screwed as EU citizens, but the EU will get fucked even sooner. Given population numbers, it appears that the EU is totally screwed when it comes to climate change. Our geopolitical enemies are well aware of this fact. There are still things we can do, like insulation, and using our fierce financial pressures to change the world. We just need to wake tf up.
- tpm 1mo ago
  No we are not in the worst place given relative population density. Look at South & Southeast Asia very carefully - there are countries like Bangladesh with pop. of 177 million in an area of double the Czech Republic (pop. 10 million). They have it much worse than us. > we join Canadian weather with English-level insulation Having lived both in England and here in Slovakia, we are much much better equipped to survive long spells with -10 with occasional dips far below that in lowlands (and obviously our mountainous regions are even better equipped). What we can't deal with yet is the heat and drought like this summer. > using our fierce financial pressures to change the world We are already doing that using for example CBAM. We just have to continue.
  - sph 1mo ago
    What’s population density got to do with worsening climate?

ColdStream 1mo ago

I suspect that unless there is a consensus or at least a large majority in favor of it, nothing will be done. Lets say the EU does geoengineering and then there are crop failures in India the next year. Their fault or not, they are going to get blamed for it and actions taken. The EU would become the scapegoat for any kind of weather/climate issues in future. This is the trolley problem done at a global scale.

pfisch 1mo ago
>Lets say the EU does geoengineering and then there are crop failures in India the next year. Who cares? Tell them to go pound sand or stop burning so much coal. Countries are already water seeding. This kind of worry that someone might complain about the eu trying to save itself is so low on the list of things that matter. Let them complain, and the eu can complain about all the other countries geoengineering by burning fossil fuels.
- ColdStream 1mo ago
  Alas, that kind of bravado doesn't go far. Also what if that complaint comes back in the form of a Nuke as they see it as an act of war? When things become existential, a lot of things that seems unlikely end up on the table as moral corruption sets in. "Either they go or we do!"
  - pepperoni_pizza 1mo ago
    Then they get nuked back and they all die? Like how does that answer means anything?
    - autoexec 1mo ago
      "nuke us and get nuked back" means we all die. Push people to the point where they're dying anyway and they might not see taking you out with them as a bad thing. You're a whole lot safer when the people around you can get enough food and water. We already have solutions that don't involve putting entire nations at risk of dying off in large numbers. The problem is that those solutions would eat into the already massive and growing profits of corporations who would sooner put your safety at risk than take even a small hit to their unsustainable growth.

zamadatix 1mo ago

I don't think that's the popular reasoning those downvoting have taken to. Can you think of reasons other than they think doing nothing sounds like a great plan people might be downvoting about? If not, I could share a few concerns with the approach that come to my mind (if it helps). It would have been nice if more of those people just commented directly instead of downvoting and moving on.

blooalien 1mo ago
> It would have been nice if more of those people just commented directly instead of downvoting and moving on. I'll comment directly; Has anyone considered that this is a literal global problem, and that just maybe it might require some global cooperation? Any one nation "most at risk" from a global problem is only "most at risk" temporarily. This is absolutely 1000% a problem that will affect everyone everywhere on this planet soon enough (already is IMHO), no matter the current situation. The longer we continue these childish "but they aren't doing their part" arguments, the worse it's gonna be in the end for everyone involved. We're letting petulant toddlers in grown adult bodies decide for everyone that death and destruction is the future we want. This is absolutely not a situation we can solve on a place-to-place basis. The one place we have to worry about now is the entire planet FFS! And it's not a magical switch we can just "turn off" once we think our "enemies" are appropriately fucked over. The changes happening to our ecosystems will take literal decades or even centuries to recover from, even if we were to stop adding to the problem right this very instant. Not to mention the whole worry about "tipping points" (many of which we've already blown right past as if it's "no big deal").

consumer451 1mo ago

I agree with you. We are actually at huge risk. "Western Civilization" rose out of our stable European climate and that is over now. However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. That's just how that works... the Jet Stream. Meanwhile one country believes that global warming is a benefit, aka Russia. They currently appear to have control of the West.. so what in the actual f? For a far more dire diatribe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427651

estearum 1mo ago
Global consensus would be great, but "reliable mechanism" would be a decent start. In lieu of that, there's nothing to build consensus around.
- eightysixfour 1mo ago
  Atmospheric sulfur seems to be the "default."
  - estearum 1mo ago
    Yes which is an extremely dangerous and completely unproven idea.
  - apothegm 1mo ago
    Because when we did that accidentally the outcomes were so great?
pfisch 1mo ago
>However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. Why? Does china or the us need a consensus before taking existential risks like making ai? Or detonating a nuke that had a tiny chance of setting the atmosphere on fire? Or attacking random countries with almost no rationale or plan? This kind of thinking is why the EU is screwed. No other major power cares that much because they aren't at the same level of risk as the eu.

akd 1mo ago

They can't do anything, everything is in China's hands and the EU does not have the hard or soft power to make China do or not do anything.

D_Alex 1mo ago

The EU has made a difficult problem even worse by switching from pipeline gas to LNG. LNG has anywhere from 10% to 100% more greenhouse gas emissions, depending on who you believe about how much methane leaks during LNG production and transport operations. Most credible estimate IMO is +60%.

maxhille 1mo ago
Putin turned off the gas, not the EU
- D_Alex 1mo ago
  Really? Do you have a credible source for this?
  - maxhille 1mo ago
    The Wikipedia article cites a long list of reputable news outlets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Russia%E2%80%93European_Union_gas_dispute#Gas_delivery_disruption,_April_2022_%E2%80%93_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Russia%E2%80...
    - D_Alex 1mo ago
      But it doesn’t support your claim. In summary, Russia, after having their dollar and euro bank accounts frozen, demanded payment in roubles. It stopped supplying the gas to the customers who weren’t paying. After that, the EU announced it will stop buying Russian gas completely, and replaced it with LNG. Thus increasing the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to its gas use by about 60%. :(
      - maxhille 1mo ago
        "My" claim: > Putin ("Russia") turned off the gas Your summary: > Russia [...] stopped supplying the gas. [...]

piokoch 1mo ago

Sorry, but what? EU literally destroyed its economy by forcing "green energy", so manufacturing was moved to Asia (who cannot care less about climate and uses whatever cheap energy source thy have so this was a rather stupid move), ETS and ETS-2 systems are putting huge taxes on EU citizens for any kind of emission, including building a house or having non-zero emission flat or house. The "little" problem here is that all of this does not matter at all, as EU is emitting insignificant amount of CO2, comparing to Asia or USA.

leonidasrup 1mo ago

"The EU’s Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra warns that to prevent costs from spiraling further, European governments must start investing massive sums in measures to climate-proof their countries, known as adaptation." https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-climate-adaptation-spending-wopke-hoekstra-wildfires-heat-waves/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-climate-adaptation-spendi...

chinathrow 1mo ago
We probabbly must do all three things at once - adapt - stop rising CO2 levels - remove CO2 from the atmosphere

dgellow 1mo ago

It’s far from being only an EU or European issue. It’s not like Europe can by itself do something to avoid the collapse of the Atlantic Gulf Stream.

watwut 1mo ago

EU did a lot and e was willing to harm own economies. Betreyal was from elsewhere.

jurgenburgen 1mo ago

If we can’t even switch away from fossils then where do we get the magical political will to build a massive, untested system that needs constant maintenance indefinitely to keep our environment stable? Our governments don’t seem to even be able to sustain consensus for a single election cycle, active geoengineering projects would require committing to keep doing it for decades, centuries or however long it takes to get back to equilibrium.

pfisch 1mo ago
Switching away from fossil fuels is a gigantic ask compared to having some planes release a ton of reflective particles into the atmosphere. It isn't even expensive. 15-30 billion per year would be enough to cause 1 degree Celsius of cooling by having planes put SO2 into the atmosphere. Double that for 2 degrees. That is way less than the EU has given to Ukraine.
- jurgenburgen 1mo ago
  Quadruple for 4 degrees? Or is the cost exponential? What happens when some right-wing nut jobs take power and decide to kill this woke geoengineering because climate change is just a conspiracy? Will we get to experience decades worth of warming in one go? Meanwhile we just start burning even more fossils because climate change is “solved”? I think we’re not that desperate yet. And whatever geoengineering is done we still need to solve the root cause.