Why aren’t we injecting particulate in the stratosphere yet.
The reluctance to apply the cheapest and fastest mitigation to warming because of its moral hazard is ridiculous. Yes it doesn’t solve ocean acidification and has risk of unintended consequences. Right now it’s the only practical option to prevent 1.5C of warming.
It’s maddening that each country laying lip service to emmissions is where we are at right now. Geo-Engineering can give us the 10-20 years required for the tech to propagate out and reduce CO2 emmissions because it’s cheaper.
What are you talking about? Not being glib, what are you talking about especially the bold.
....okay did the googles, very interesting stuff. Unintended consequences?
What are you talking about? Not being glib, what are you talking about especially the bold.
....okay did the googles, very interesting stuff. Unintended consequences?
The two main options are S02 or salt water. The S02 functions like a volcanic eruption the sea spray creates more clouds. Both reflect sunlight and reduce thermal energy getting to the earth.
The problem is that messing with the thermal energy coming to the earth has potential to mess up weather and precipitation patterns though both of these are reversible by stopping injection.
The main (but not only) problem with this is that it will actually result in 10-20 more years of heel dragging, not 10-20 years of problem solving.
I don't get this line of thought at all. Delaying disaster by 10 or 20 years is a good thing. Even if - as you say - all it will do is cause people to drag their feet for 20 more years, that is STILL a positive outcome! And if any actual progress can take place over that 10 to 20 years - which is, you know, kind of the point - then it is a huge win!
Where is the downside there?
If we can't solve this with an extra 20 years in our pockets, then we sure as hell aren't going to solve it without those 20 years!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
The main (but not only) problem with this is that it will actually result in 10-20 more years of heel dragging, not 10-20 years of problem solving.
I strongly disagree with this. Global warming will be solved by proliferation of lower and lower cost technology which makes CO2 emissions obsolete. We can move that point in time around somewhat through incentives and taxes but technology is the only way to maintain consumption, bring people out of poverty, and solve global warming.
That means we need as much time as possible. These tools are better than the alternative of failure to prevent 1.5C of warming. Right now we are all failing.
Putting particles in the environment should be considered but we need to understand the consequences before we do it. It's also a difficult policy to enact because it has world wide consequences so you need to get a ton of countries to agree.
I think the biggest problem when it comes to reducing per capita carbon footprints is that trying to manage it at an international or national level doesn't work. It puts pressure on industry, which just passes the cost on to the consumers. It's not really fair to make consumers pay more, who are already paying out the nose, so that the billionaires on top can keep raking in the profits.
For it to work, it has to be a collaborated effort at the community level. Instead of trying to force people into reducing their carbon output by making it economically unviable, they need to be persuasive by making cities more logistical to reduce the need for energy. Promote producing and buying local products, better city planning, better public transport, that sort of thing.
It will require a complete cultural shift to change "car culture" in North America, to convince people that they don't need avocados from Mexico or a TV in every room of the house. That's the tricky part.
We may pay a lot of tax and high housing costs, but the majority of what we buy is ridiculously cheap from a historic perspective. We are absolutely not ‘paying through the nose’ for most things but we will need to be if we hope to curb our unsustainable consumption. Hence the carbon tax for example. Economic incentive is about the only method to change society’s behaviour outside of regulation.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
We may pay a lot of tax and high housing costs, but the majority of what we buy is ridiculously cheap from a historic perspective. We are absolutely not ‘paying through the nose’ for most things but we will need to be if we hope to curb our unsustainable consumption. Hence the carbon tax for example. Economic incentive is about the only method to change society’s behaviour outside of regulation.
If you're talking about things like electronics and other luxuries, then I agree. We generally don't pay what those things are worth. I am talking more about things like energy and housing. The average Canadian pays a large percentage or their income on housing, commuting to work, and keeping the power on.
I agree that economic incentives are the mechanism for change, but instead of penalizing people for having to commute, the goal should be to build cities where people can afford to live where they work and other persuasive economic incentives for change. You can make using energy more punitive for consumers, but it doesn't reduce overall reliance we have. It just makes people poorer.
But yeah, I am fine if big screen TVs cost $6,000 instead of $800.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I don't get this line of thought at all. Delaying disaster by 10 or 20 years is a good thing. Even if - as you say - all it will do is cause people to drag their feet for 20 more years, that is STILL a positive outcome! And if any actual progress can take place over that 10 to 20 years - which is, you know, kind of the point - then it is a huge win!
Where is the downside there?
If we can't solve this with an extra 20 years in our pockets, then we sure as hell aren't going to solve it without those 20 years!
There is no guarantee that geoengineering will work the way we want it to, and we simply don't know the full extent of what all the unintended consequences may ultimately be. Here's a video that looks at geoengineering and its potential pros & cons:
Quote:
I strongly disagree with this. Global warming will be solved by proliferation of lower and lower cost technology which makes CO2 emissions obsolete. We can move that point in time around somewhat through incentives and taxes but technology is the only way to maintain consumption, bring people out of poverty, and solve global warming.
That means we need as much time as possible. These tools are better than the alternative of failure to prevent 1.5C of warming. Right now we are all failing.
We are failing because we have the wrong mindset. There is a glaring lack of urgency out there, and it's because most people have in the back of their minds "oh sure, climate change is bad & everything, but somehow humanity will find a way to solve it, so no need to be too worried about it". What most fail to understand is that climate change is unlike any other challenge humanity has ever faced. The time delay between emitting CO2 and the consequences of those emissions, means that it is very hard to perceive the relationship between decision and consequence of decision. Furthermore, most don't seem to understand that once the you know what hits the fan (it's already beginning to, btw...), we can't just make the problem suddenly go away by rapidly cutting emissions at that point. There's only one way we avoid the worst case scenarios, and that's by cutting rapidly now.
So my worry with geoengineering is that it may not deliver on what we hoped it would do, it may have disastrous, potentially irreversible unintended consequences (affecting everything from human health to ecosystems around the world), and it's likely to give people a false sense of security where they think hey, we've solved global warming, now back to regularly scheduled programming.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
You seem to have a lot of faith that society will deal with global in time to prevent irreversible affects then I do.
I put the chance at limiting to 1.5C of warming without geoengineering to give time to develop better tech at zero.
So with that mindset the question isn’t will geoengineering create a moral hazard that delays solving global warming it’s can we geo-engineer effectively enough to prevent permanent damage.
I read an interesting book recently called the wizard and the prophet. It’s a really neat book about how human scale problems are solved and follows two different views.
The prophets are warning of destruction and want to cut consumption in order to solve problems. The wizards believe that human ingenuity will solve all problems. So when wizards and prophets discuss solutions to things like climate change their is an underlying clash of values which prevents progress. Both groups are right and are key to solving human scale problems.
In climate change right now I think geo-engineering and nuclear power best exemplify this disconnect. Even though the wizard and the prophets fundamentally agree that humans can solve their problems aren’t just bacteria in a petry dish expanding until their environment is destroyed and starvation occurs.
You seem to have a lot of faith that society will deal with global in time to prevent irreversible affects then I do.
I put the chance at limiting to 1.5C of warming without geoengineering to give time to develop better tech at zero.
So with that mindset the question isn’t will geoengineering create a moral hazard that delays solving global warming it’s can we geo-engineer effectively enough to prevent permanent damage.
I read an interesting book recently called the wizard and the prophet. It’s a really neat book about how human scale problems are solved and follows two different views.
The prophets are warning of destruction and want to cut consumption in order to solve problems. The wizards believe that human ingenuity will solve all problems. So when wizards and prophets discuss solutions to things like climate change their is an underlying clash of values which prevents progress. Both groups are right and are key to solving human scale problems.
In climate change right now I think geo-engineering and nuclear power best exemplify this disconnect. Even though the wizard and the prophets fundamentally agree that humans can solve their problems aren’t just bacteria in a petry dish expanding until their environment is destroyed and starvation occurs.
I've been reading The Ministry for the Future (sci-climate-fiction) that covers this where the inaction of humans is addressed. In the book India does end up unilaterally going the geo-engineering route after a very deadly heat wave. I wouldn't call it a great read, but it does bring up interesting ideas that I hadn't thought of.
It also addresses the violence that will likely occur as the climate issues get worse. It will likely be violence and disasters that will end up increasing political urgency to do something about this.
You seem to have a lot of faith that society will deal with global in time to prevent irreversible affects then I do.
I put the chance at limiting to 1.5C of warming without geoengineering to give time to develop better tech at zero.
So with that mindset the question isn’t will geoengineering create a moral hazard that delays solving global warming it’s can we geo-engineer effectively enough to prevent permanent damage.
I read an interesting book recently called the wizard and the prophet. It’s a really neat book about how human scale problems are solved and follows two different views.
The prophets are warning of destruction and want to cut consumption in order to solve problems. The wizards believe that human ingenuity will solve all problems. So when wizards and prophets discuss solutions to things like climate change their is an underlying clash of values which prevents progress. Both groups are right and are key to solving human scale problems.
In climate change right now I think geo-engineering and nuclear power best exemplify this disconnect. Even though the wizard and the prophets fundamentally agree that humans can solve their problems aren’t just bacteria in a petry dish expanding until their environment is destroyed and starvation occurs.
Thanks for this - I will definitely grab that book. It articulates something I have always felt about human behavior. Put like that, it becomes very clear what the difference in the two strategies/behaviors are.
I am most definitely a wizard (or at least on the side of the wizards) in pretty much all things, and prophets frustrate me.
I am a total layman when it comes to geoengineering. I'm pretty skeptical that we can actually (as a race) pull off something of that scale without badly screwing something up. It reminds me of cane toads in Australia.
There are only 3 options from what I understand though. Geoengineering, carbon capture, and emission reduction.
David Yager had an interesting piece on it this AM.
There are only 3 options from what I understand though. Geoengineering, carbon capture, and emission reduction.
I would think that two latter of those are the most reasonable and prudent strategies, while geoengineering would be last resort.
I think the dire nature of things can been seen in industry. The automotive industry is rapidly shifting their fleets toward plug-in electrics. The oil and gas sector has gone pretty silent on trying to counter the climate change science argument. We see three billionaires investing a lot of money in trying to find means to escape the planet. It seems we are near or have passed a tipping point, and not the industrial reactions are starting to manifest. What we really need is a massive change in the nuclear energy narrative and a rapid adoption of thorium-based salt reactors to solve the energy needs.
You seem to have a lot of faith that society will deal with global in time to prevent irreversible affects then I do.
I put the chance at limiting to 1.5C of warming without geoengineering to give time to develop better tech at zero.
So with that mindset the question isn’t will geoengineering create a moral hazard that delays solving global warming it’s can we geo-engineer effectively enough to prevent permanent damage.
I read an interesting book recently called the wizard and the prophet. It’s a really neat book about how human scale problems are solved and follows two different views.
The prophets are warning of destruction and want to cut consumption in order to solve problems. The wizards believe that human ingenuity will solve all problems. So when wizards and prophets discuss solutions to things like climate change their is an underlying clash of values which prevents progress. Both groups are right and are key to solving human scale problems.
In climate change right now I think geo-engineering and nuclear power best exemplify this disconnect. Even though the wizard and the prophets fundamentally agree that humans can solve their problems aren’t just bacteria in a petry dish expanding until their environment is destroyed and starvation occurs.
I would think that two latter of those are the most reasonable and prudent strategies, while geoengineering would be last resort.
I think the dire nature of things can been seen in industry. The automotive industry is rapidly shifting their fleets toward plug-in electrics. The oil and gas sector has gone pretty silent on trying to counter the climate change science argument. We see three billionaires investing a lot of money in trying to find means to escape the planet. It seems we are near or have passed a tipping point, and not the industrial reactions are starting to manifest. What we really need is a massive change in the nuclear energy narrative and a rapid adoption of thorium-based salt reactors to solve the energy needs.
I feel like this is saying, if covid had been man made, and we let it run it's course for a while, then, instead of using vaccines to fix it, we just say "well, it would be dangerous to mess with nature." That ship sailed long ago. We created this, and there are solutions, so probably worth doing them.
Even though the wizard and the prophets fundamentally agree that humans can solve their problems aren’t just bacteria in a petry dish expanding until their environment is destroyed and starvation occurs.
The petry dish analogy isn't as inaccurate as people think it is.
What got us into this mess in the first place is a combination of overpopulation and overconsumption, not a lack of technology. That's what the wizards don't seem willing to acknowledge. You can't solve a problem by continuing on the trajectory that got you into it in the first place, and just assuming that technological advancements will save the day.
That's not to say the wizards are entirely wrong. If this problem is going to be solved, technology will play a key role. But it's a huge mistake to think that technology alone can get us out of this mess.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
You seem to have a lot of faith that society will deal with global in time to prevent irreversible affects then I do.
I put the chance at limiting to 1.5C of warming without geoengineering to give time to develop better tech at zero.
So with that mindset the question isn’t will geoengineering create a moral hazard that delays solving global warming it’s can we geo-engineer effectively enough to prevent permanent damage.
I read an interesting book recently called the wizard and the prophet. It’s a really neat book about how human scale problems are solved and follows two different views.
The prophets are warning of destruction and want to cut consumption in order to solve problems. The wizards believe that human ingenuity will solve all problems. So when wizards and prophets discuss solutions to things like climate change their is an underlying clash of values which prevents progress. Both groups are right and are key to solving human scale problems.
In climate change right now I think geo-engineering and nuclear power best exemplify this disconnect. Even though the wizard and the prophets fundamentally agree that humans can solve their problems aren’t just bacteria in a petry dish expanding until their environment is destroyed and starvation occurs.
When I look around the world today and compare our enthusiasm for self-restraint and collective action vs our capacity for technological innovation, taking the wizard approach seems the safer bet.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
I think that we aren't going to prevent cataclysmic warming if I'm honest with myself.
That said, there is no way to know what steps or combination of steps gives us a better chance of preventing the worst.
Science has told us what's coming - I don't think any option whatsoever for improving our chances at avoiding a near-extinction event should be taken off the table, really.
The Following User Says Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
