Weird how this question wasn't and isn't asked about the cause of the problem and instead only asked about a potential solution. Petrochemical industries are allowed to re-engineer the world's...
Who gets to decide when to re-engineer the weather, with what technology and at what scale?
Weird how this question wasn't and isn't asked about the cause of the problem and instead only asked about a potential solution. Petrochemical industries are allowed to re-engineer the world's weather as much as they want.
The Climate Denier’s Playbook (Climate Town’s podcast) did an episode on this subject recently: https://youtu.be/E9vhQ_nGB8c A key issue they highlight is the second-order consequences of...
The Climate Denier’s Playbook (Climate Town’s podcast) did an episode on this subject recently: https://youtu.be/E9vhQ_nGB8c
A key issue they highlight is the second-order consequences of geoengineering. Some geoengineering projects (particularly those involving chemicals) require that they be continued forever or the problem will actually be worse than before. Or they’re not really controllable, like cloud seeding, and can cause destruction in unpredictable ways.
While geoengineering might be a “break glass in case of emergency” stopgap, we should really be focused on permanent climate solutions (like emissions reduction, green energy projects, public transit) rather than trying to modify the environment further.
To add, the extent to which climate change will change things but still leave a good amount of global "aggregate utility" in some function (situations where a function has become less suitable in...
To add, the extent to which climate change will change things but still leave a good amount of global "aggregate utility" in some function (situations where a function has become less suitable in one area, but more suitable in another), geoengineering, I would think, would introduce a lot of uncertainty into modeling that would make it much harder for policymakers, societies, and markets to adapt. It's my general, non-expert view that the most disastrous scenarios involving climate change will have to do with societies being unable to adapt and conflicts emerging from it—not necessarily a loss in global aggregate utility in a crucial area (that's not to say it would not be optimal to prevent the causes of climate change, it definitely would be since policymakers and societies aren't very adaptable and societies to some extent have a right to not change if they don't want to).
That being said, I'm not completely opposed to mechanical solutions like mirrors to reflect the sun. This would seem especially useful if deployed to slow feedback loops like between ice melt and local heating.
Non-permanent, and it carries a huge psychological risk — by masking the increases, it makes attacking the root cause more difficult to get support for since some half the population doesn’t even...
Non-permanent, and it carries a huge psychological risk — by masking the increases, it makes attacking the root cause more difficult to get support for since some half the population doesn’t even believe the problem exists.
Also, as the underlying problem increases the consequences of stopping the treatment becomes increasingly severe (termination shock). Since we have no real idea what the total effect will be, it might turn out that we need to stop abruptly, if secondary issues arise that we were unable to predict.
All in all, I don't think even the potentially less chemically invasive strategies should be used except to mitigate runaway phenomena (ex. putting a bunch of mirrors in the Sahara could desertify...
All in all, I don't think even the potentially less chemically invasive strategies should be used except to mitigate runaway phenomena (ex. putting a bunch of mirrors in the Sahara could desertify South America).
And while they touched on the acid rain bit with sulfates?ites?...sulfur dioxide...IIRC they didn't address the part where that's the dirty part of coal that directly kills people through lung...
And while they touched on the acid rain bit with sulfates?ites?...sulfur dioxide...IIRC they didn't address the part where that's the dirty part of coal that directly kills people through lung disease. Not sure I want that sprayed in the atmosphere 60,000 times a year...forever.
Haven’t gotten to the linked podcast yet, but if I recall correctly, an alternative could potentially be certain salts, which would promise to not be, well, toxic. But in general it’d of course...
Haven’t gotten to the linked podcast yet, but if I recall correctly, an alternative could potentially be certain salts, which would promise to not be, well, toxic.
But in general it’d of course remain unpredictable and other measures would be preferable for humanity.
Weird how this question wasn't and isn't asked about the cause of the problem and instead only asked about a potential solution. Petrochemical industries are allowed to re-engineer the world's weather as much as they want.
My immediate thought, seeing the title, "What? ... Again?"
The Climate Denier’s Playbook (Climate Town’s podcast) did an episode on this subject recently: https://youtu.be/E9vhQ_nGB8c
A key issue they highlight is the second-order consequences of geoengineering. Some geoengineering projects (particularly those involving chemicals) require that they be continued forever or the problem will actually be worse than before. Or they’re not really controllable, like cloud seeding, and can cause destruction in unpredictable ways.
While geoengineering might be a “break glass in case of emergency” stopgap, we should really be focused on permanent climate solutions (like emissions reduction, green energy projects, public transit) rather than trying to modify the environment further.
To add, the extent to which climate change will change things but still leave a good amount of global "aggregate utility" in some function (situations where a function has become less suitable in one area, but more suitable in another), geoengineering, I would think, would introduce a lot of uncertainty into modeling that would make it much harder for policymakers, societies, and markets to adapt. It's my general, non-expert view that the most disastrous scenarios involving climate change will have to do with societies being unable to adapt and conflicts emerging from it—not necessarily a loss in global aggregate utility in a crucial area (that's not to say it would not be optimal to prevent the causes of climate change, it definitely would be since policymakers and societies aren't very adaptable and societies to some extent have a right to not change if they don't want to).
That being said, I'm not completely opposed to mechanical solutions like mirrors to reflect the sun. This would seem especially useful if deployed to slow feedback loops like between ice melt and local heating.
What about sea salt seeded clouds that reflect the sun? That’s the approach I hear most people talking about.
Non-permanent, and it carries a huge psychological risk — by masking the increases, it makes attacking the root cause more difficult to get support for since some half the population doesn’t even believe the problem exists.
Also, as the underlying problem increases the consequences of stopping the treatment becomes increasingly severe (termination shock). Since we have no real idea what the total effect will be, it might turn out that we need to stop abruptly, if secondary issues arise that we were unable to predict.
All in all, I don't think even the potentially less chemically invasive strategies should be used except to mitigate runaway phenomena (ex. putting a bunch of mirrors in the Sahara could desertify South America).
And while they touched on the acid rain bit with sulfates?ites?...sulfur dioxide...IIRC they didn't address the part where that's the dirty part of coal that directly kills people through lung disease. Not sure I want that sprayed in the atmosphere 60,000 times a year...forever.
Haven’t gotten to the linked podcast yet, but if I recall correctly, an alternative could potentially be certain salts, which would promise to not be, well, toxic.
But in general it’d of course remain unpredictable and other measures would be preferable for humanity.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/p27hr