I still don’t get the reasoning behind these sort of geo engineering projects. Let’s say, best case scenario, it works wonders and cools the planet significantly.
The fact that we found a “solution” to the warming temperatures will justify the actions if the corporations pumping tons of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. If anything, it will encourage them to pollute more, as there is now a way to solve the problem.
De-growth is the only way to actually solve the problem. But since it’s not profitable, it won’t happen under the current economic system.
I definitely don’t disagree with you, but if it helps it helps. At this point I think we need to reverse our damage in order to avoid disaster.
But yes, it will also give encourage more pollution unless companies are actually held responsible for their pollution.
Millions of people starving in third-world countries will in no way make wealthy business executives feel “responsible” for what they’re doing. They don’t care about that. So if you want these companies held responsible, letting mass deaths happen isn’t going to do it.
Frankly even if it would make them feel “responsible” it’s a monstrous thing to allow to happen if you have any way of stopping it. IMO the people who oppose geoengineering research because they want greenhouse gas emissions to cause megadeaths are as out of touch with humanity as the executives they claim to hate.
The general reasoning is that while it doesn’t help with ocean acidification or a thousand knock on effects, and most certainly doesn’t ‘solve the problem’ as you put it, such measures would blunt most of the most deadly ones, especially for poorer nations that don’t have the resources to abandon coastlines, flood, and drought prone areas.
Especially since even if all artificial co2, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions snapped out of existence tomorrow we’d still see feedback warming for years to come, and centuries to return to where we are today, killing hundreds of millions of people in the meantime.
If they work effectively, which I am admittedly personally highly skeptical of, any of these geoengineering projects could save tens of millions of people for negligible cost long after we’ve hit net zero.
I am however also skeptical that it would significantly encourage companies to pollute more, as that necessitates you to expect them to pollute less if they think millions of people will die at some point in the distant future because of it, and I think basically any graph of fossil fuel useage after we all agreed that it was killing a shit ton of people and had to be eliminated in the 90s pretty well proves that not to be the case.
I also don’t think that needless death and destruction will modivate significant political action, see Covid, it just makes people suffer.
agreed !
Hahaha exactly 😂😂
Population decline isn’t going to happen. The planets doomed. Its just damage mitigation at this point.
The chemtrail nutjobs are going to lose their minds even more.
This comment is ilegal in Tennessee. Lol.
lets just fuck this planet even more by doing experiments on the atmosphere willy-nilly. What’s the worst that can happen.
What’s the worst that can happen.
I mean, at this point, we’re cruising full speed in that direction. Willy-nilly experiments to just throw shit at the wall and see if anything sticks is all we can really count on. We’re well passed the point of doing this the easy way.
it would be nice to stop fucking up things further
Alright, we’ll just put that over here in the pile of solutions that definitely totally will really happen.
I think we should continue looking into other options in the meantime, though, just in case that doesn’t pan out for some reason.
Aren’t there some pretty definitive things that can be done… they’re just not cost-feasible for the people in charge.
Absolutely, but no one with the means to do those things has the will to, so the rest of us are left scrambling for a plan B. We’re on our last few laps around the drain - we need major interventions if we’re going to stop ourselves from going down.
Preserving the environment is no longer a good reason to not experiment on it, cuz if we stay the course it’s fucked anyway. It’s already broken beyond our current options to repair it.
They’re cost feasible, they’re just not profitable enough supposedly (though in a lot of cases, I think that’s also probably more or less bullshit, companies just don’t want to adapt).
We’re literally already doing that with greenhouse gasses on a gigantic global scale since the industrial revolution. Anything we can try is better than the course we’re on, especially since absolutely no one seem to want to seriously cut their emissions to 0.
Even if we did cut our emissions to 0 there would continue to be a rise in temperature for some time to come, glaciers would continue melting, and so forth. There’s feedback loops and inertia to this sort of thing.
Yes. However, the longer we wait, the worse it will get. If we look at all the various emission targets and dates, let’s say carbon neutrality for 2050 or whatever… Then it makes a huge huge different if we now cut 80% of those emissions in the first half, versus cutting them in the later half, or stretching it out painfully until the very end.
That’s why I’m so pessimistic about the whole topic. Everyone just slouches along as if there’s nothing to worry about. Meanwhile, a huge portion of our climate models seem to be even a bit too optimistic and not matching what is happening in the real world. And apparently it still does not care anyone. I just don’t get it.
my perpetual motion train and round the world track are still decades away!!
Given the raging anti-science commentary that erupts whenever geoengineering experiments are proposed is it any wonder they’re doing it quietly?
yeah, because this isn’t the right solution…
How can you have evidence to support that position until testing is done?
don’t you think this idea wasn’t shared with the IPCC scientists? It already was. The problem is that it could bring more unpredictability to the climate.
The subject of this thread is an experiment that is testing the efficacy of the process. Simply “sharing an idea” doesn’t give you evidence of whether it works.
The problem is that it could bring more unpredictability to the climate.
Emphasis added. How do you know whether it will bring unpredictability without some kind of experiment or other data?
So, cloud seeding works.
yeah… no side effects there… at all… luckily there are “testing” it since 2002…
The article doesn’t really seem to go into much detail but what are the risks of introducing salt water into the areas below the clouds when it condenses into rain?
If this is done on a global scale, there are multiple problems:
- the temperature would get lower artificially, until it isn’t maintained. Should we continue business as usual with fossile fuels?
- can it be done everywhere at the same time?
- what is the impact on the water pattern on a global scale?
the temperature would get lower artificially, until it isn’t maintained. Should we continue business as usual with fossile fuels?
Changing “business as usual” with fossil fuels is a separate issue that will happen or not happen regardless of the global temperature. It’s something that will have to be done as a task in its own right. Lowering the temperature would prevent millions of deaths by starvation in the meantime, whether we change “business as usual” or not.
- can it be done everywhere at the same time?
- what is the impact on the water pattern on a global scale?
Maybe we should do some tests?
This might be able to be applied regionally or locally to protect things like the Great Barriier Reef from coral bleaching events or at least parts of it.
then it would disturb the climate somewhere else…
Was curious what their test rig looks like and found some pics here.
snow cannon then…
There is a severe misunderstanding of what this is going on in this thread. 4 years ago when regulations were introduced on shipping pollution it vastly reduced the amount of cloud trail produced off the pollution. Covid also played a role here as there were far less active ships.
That pollution mixing with the clouds is theorized to have actually been helping stave off ocean warming because of the increased cloud coverages around shipping lanes reflecting more sunlight.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/china/shipping-pollution-global-warming-climate-intl/index.html
Now there have been tests in the past 4 years to recreate the cloud coverages with sea salt in order to bring the rate of temperature increase back down to the previous levels.
Does this solve climate change no of course not. But it does fix an accidental fuckup we made that came from an ultimately good decision in standardizing emissions in 2020. And we need to do anything possible to bring the RATE OF CHANGE down.
This is a waste of time as it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem.
Here are a few real impactful solutions:
Build and subsidize nuclear power
Ban cow ranching and beef entirely
Build and subsidize denser housing
Taking harm reduction measures in the meantime is absolutely not a waste of time. We cannot be so naive as to think that your suggestions will happen in the short term as each of them require radical changes to the political and social landscape that will take (have been taking) decades.
This is the same waste of time as saying that pain medication for somebody who broke their leg is a waste of time as it doesn’t heal the leg.
Of course it doesn’t fix the issue, that’s not the point. It might buy us precious needed time to stave off total disaster, which I think is a good thing ™
I’m sure that governments and large companies will (ab)use this by saying “hey! We got ten years extra so let’s return to abusive polluting!”, but that’s a different issue.
Don’t just shit on ideas that help just because they aren’t a fix all solution.
Also, your list is a bit short.
Build “15 minute cities” or just look at the Netherlands on how to build cites that were awesome to live whilst never needing a car. Build bicycle roads everywhere, subside the crap out of bicycles, increase taxes on gasoline.
Build good public transportation infrastructure everywhere. High speed lines only for cross country.
Tax air flights like there literally is not tomorrow
Ban private jets and yachts
Ban muscle cars and unnecessary large cars like those stupid SUV and pickups
Push factories to get CO2 neutral. Help and subsidise where and as needed.
Heavily tax farming of crops with extreme water requirements
Get rid of stupid places like Las Vegas that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Plant trees everywhere
Research on how we can get large transport ships emit less crap, maybe even electric, if possible (big question mark there)
Nuclear doesn’t really solve the problem. Yes the energy generation is carbon neutral, the material still has to be produced, refined and transported, which is also quite energy expensive, not to mention the messy matter of material disposal. Further, nuclear does put out a lot of energy, but the ability to output an entire countries energy requirements from 3 plants makes energy security worse, because you have fewer fallbacks in the case of power grid malfunction (CSIRO published a nuclear feasibility study for Australia recently which highlighted this as a major issue with nuclear power). Even if all that works out, it still takes ages to build a nuclear plant, by which point you could have filled the grid with renewable energy and storage and saved a lot of time and money while also meeting energy requirements and reducing cadbon output.
The ban on cattle is actually much more problematic than it appears. I didn’t understand just how problematic until very recently. Our world relies on the animal parts that are “left over” in the butchering process, not to mention the single most prolific and effective source of fertilizer for all of the vegetables that we eat is animal waste and the only method to produce enough of it to feed everyone is genuinely large scale animal farming.
There are types of animals other than cows.
This is very true, and each one fits into the industrial processes in different places. Many times the uses are not interchangeable.
Counter point: send a message to alpha centauri and await for salvation in a few years
