Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - The IPCC consensus is phoney: According to Mike Hulme

Pastiche · 06-16-2010, 06:58 AM

Geo-engineering is definitely on the table for remediation measures but it is not a panacea and is rife with many dangers. But as your article said and how I've pointed to. We are likely incapable of making the tough decisions to actually reduce GHG emissions. The cheapest options is probably mass charcoalification growing high yield grasses at the equator, turning it in charcoal and burying it. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

There are very large problems with geo-engineering. First, once it becomes so readily obvious that we need to stop warming, it will probably be too late. We've all heard of positive feedback loops. Only extremely aggressive geo-engineering would likely help once the permafrost starts exponentially melting. That brings up the second point, playing mother nature at a mass scale is beyond our comprehensive and is likely to produce many unseen and possibly disastrous consequences. We don't know what lining our clouds with sulphates will do in the medium-long term. We don't know how we will alter our ecosystems if we geo-engineer. Once again we really on our panache and hubris which are exactly the traits that have got us into this mess.

To me, waiting to do nothing until it is a really bad problem and then engage in geo-engineering, something we've never done, is reckless and conceited.

The solutions to me right now are obvious, stop burning so many fossil fuels. Cap and trade or carbon tax (essentially the same policy) are not as riven with rent seeking opportunities and many people want to believe. It's funny how we rely on markets for the provision of almost all of our goods and services (some here even advocate for markets in health care delivery) but the idea of using markets for environmental protection is a non-starter. To me that's just another method to deflect, obfuscate and pass-the-buck. We have no problems with people enriching themselves in other types of markets why the aversion to the environment? Oh yeah because that's actually not the issue, the issue is that we don't want to do anything and use that as another excuse to not face up to the problem.

06-16-2010, 06:58 AM	#80
Pastiche Lifetime Suspension Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Enil Angus Exp:	Geo-engineering is definitely on the table for remediation measures but it is not a panacea and is rife with many dangers. But as your article said and how I've pointed to. We are likely incapable of making the tough decisions to actually reduce GHG emissions. The cheapest options is probably mass charcoalification growing high yield grasses at the equator, turning it in charcoal and burying it. Repeat, repeat, repeat. There are very large problems with geo-engineering. First, once it becomes so readily obvious that we need to stop warming, it will probably be too late. We've all heard of positive feedback loops. Only extremely aggressive geo-engineering would likely help once the permafrost starts exponentially melting. That brings up the second point, playing mother nature at a mass scale is beyond our comprehensive and is likely to produce many unseen and possibly disastrous consequences. We don't know what lining our clouds with sulphates will do in the medium-long term. We don't know how we will alter our ecosystems if we geo-engineer. Once again we really on our panache and hubris which are exactly the traits that have got us into this mess. To me, waiting to do nothing until it is a really bad problem and then engage in geo-engineering, something we've never done, is reckless and conceited. The solutions to me right now are obvious, stop burning so many fossil fuels. Cap and trade or carbon tax (essentially the same policy) are not as riven with rent seeking opportunities and many people want to believe. It's funny how we rely on markets for the provision of almost all of our goods and services (some here even advocate for markets in health care delivery) but the idea of using markets for environmental protection is a non-starter. To me that's just another method to deflect, obfuscate and pass-the-buck. We have no problems with people enriching themselves in other types of markets why the aversion to the environment? Oh yeah because that's actually not the issue, the issue is that we don't want to do anything and use that as another excuse to not face up to the problem.