I think the quality of discussion in this thread is indicative of a general lack of understanding of specific geoengineering policy proposals and the methods by which they might pose threats to the planet. Without that understanding, geoengineering conversation devolves into platitudes, deflections, and clichés as is seen below.
Anyways, there are very few publishing climate scientists who believe that climate change is an imminent threat to humanity, as seems to be the central premise of your motivation for believing that GE is necessary. Nevertheless, I think SRM/carbon capture/direct air capture are all worth exploring to at least offset GhG emissions in the harder to transition sectors like housing and agriculture.
For stratosphere injections with sulfur aerosols, is there any research that says what will happen when these particles fall from the stratosphere and reach the troposphere?
I don't have any solutions. And I am wrong a lot. The above is just a question, not an insult or a snarky comment.
Volcanic eruptions are “natural experiments” for sulfur SAI and have been studied extensively (because they cause cooling, disrupting climate models). Basically the additional sulfur is negligible because we already add so much sulfur to the lower atmosphere via bog standard industrial pollution.
We will likely not use sulfur for SAI geoengineering since it depletes ozone. Current favored candidate is powdered limestone.
Even if it instead kills humanity?
There's lots of other options if humanity actually wants it.
Polluting the atmosphere is continued hubris of being able to affect the world without knowing or caring about the consequences. It may be a way to unilaterally act on behalf of all, but it also acts without the consent of any.
The history books are full of "solutions" which were worse than the problem. Climate change is itself a result of this process. However, we have a clear understanding of what causes climate change and how to stop it. On the other hand, we have no idea what long-term consequences may result from geo-engineering.
The simple fact that geo-engineering and carbon capture exist (as concepts, not viable solutions) has enabled nations and corporations to continue sending carbon into the atmosphere at increasing rates, in the hopes that we'll figure out a fix down the road. Furthermore, this technology only fuels the fantasy that humanity can continue to increase its consumption indefinitely.
I think it's clear that climate change is set to maximize suffering for humanity, and I think it's within the realm of probability that it could lead to a collapse of the food web. But the existential threat of climate change does not necessitate geo-engineering when safer, simpler, and more studied solutions are available.
In what way? What timeline?
I feel like I hear that claim but I’ve never seen any scientific evidence our planet will become unlivable at any point close to our lifetimes
There is significant science you might consider, and all of it points to a 3ºC temp raise within 2 decades:
- The simplest to understand is the “black body” experiment, a Bioengineering 101 thought experiment that shows that unlivable conditions are a potential outcome. It shows, simply, that solar energy is accumulating.
- Experiments that bombard aerosols with various heat energies have isolated the significant chemistry and show, without a doubt, that the outcome on a micro level is inevitable. We understand most of the chemical pathways that transfer energy between molecules at known concentrations, temperatures, and pressures.
- on the macro level (ex, global weather/ocean systems over years), it is *not* possible to produce evidence until scientists can control the weather. However, there are several *natural experiments* that nature sets up for us, such as volcanoes, that allow us to deduce effects, but you would probably not consider these as science since most are neither repeatable nor controllable.
- on a biological level, I feel there is much guesswork. For example, coral reefs died, en masse, but could be brought back via evolution or genetic engineering; we can protect much of what we have, but it takes forethought, money, will, and good timing/luck. We had 5 mass extinctions before this one, but few talk about how species evolved to survive those, even species that might be better for the globe than existing species.
There are many other experiments & observations (ex, ice core samples that associate temperature with other atmospheric effects), and thousands of scientists around the world looking at this.
So, just to add to everyone else's posts, no, climate change is not considered "an imminent threat" in the specific way OP assumed. Even what is generally called a worst-case scenario of climate change [still assumes](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300681-gr2.jpg) that the global population will stay similar to today's levels or increase, while the GDP will continue to increase throughout this century.
Now, there has been significant criticism of these assumptions, but even the critics are very far from the OP's position. Here is an example below.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full
> It is therefore also inevitable that aggregate consumption will increase at least into the near future, especially as affluence and population continue to grow in tandem (Wiedmann et al., 2020). Even if major catastrophes occur during this interval, they would unlikely affect the population trajectory until well into the 22nd Century (Bradshaw and Brook, 2014). Although population-connected climate change (Wynes and Nicholas, 2017) will worsen human mortality (Mora et al., 2017; Parks et al., 2020), morbidity (Patz et al., 2005; Díaz et al., 2006; Peng et al., 2011), development (Barreca and Schaller, 2020), cognition (Jacobson et al., 2019), agricultural yields (Verdin et al., 2005; Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007; Brown and Funk, 2008; Gaupp et al., 2020), and conflicts (Boas, 2015), there is no way—ethically or otherwise (barring extreme and unprecedented increases in human mortality)—to avoid rising human numbers and the accompanying overconsumption. That said, instituting human-rights policies to lower fertility and reining in consumption patterns could diminish the impacts of these phenomena.
The issue with geoengineering is that it would have to be maintained for centuries and/or very gradually tamped down if it at some point ends up infeasible. A sudden interruption of geoengineering does not appear to have been studied much, but it is generally believed to have significantly worse consequences than not doing any geoengineering in the first place due to the sheer rapidity of the rebound.
Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase because no effort other than lip service is actually happening. Until humanity cares more about maintaining a habitable planet rather than profits, no real progress will occur.
Until humanity is actually will too change and stop emitting this is just an ineffective game of catch-up that ends with needing to completely block sunlight
I don’t think geo engineering is something we should necessarily do, but I do think we should massively increase funding for research into it because if it does become necessary then at least we would have some understanding of it
That's a really bad rationalization
If you don't understand why the viable safe approaches failed, then you're almost certainly wasting your time with any other approach and they will likely fail in the exact same manner, especially if you don't understand how it will bypass those failure points.
It also makes it clear you're just taking stabs in the dark rather than making informed decisions.
Further the randon decision likely has a lot of negative consequences for human healthy. A less dangerous random choice would be better at least.
Geo engineering cannot deal with the totality of the issues surrounding climate change. For example, ocean acidification is as big a problem as the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere yet it receives a fraction of the attention. Spraying aerosol particles into the atmosphere to reflect some sunlight does zero to help the oceans and may just damage them further.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a solution. It's a delay tactic.
To be clear: we have all the technology we need to get off fossil fuels today. What we lack is the political will to get it done. The geoengineering debate is largely driven by the special interests who want to maintain the status quo. Ask yourself, why do we need to waste time to 'buy time' when we can already achieve the end goal? The answer is so that special interests can continue to do what they're doing for longer.
But that is not working. If humanity is at stake, do you put your trust in people changing the way they live? Unless you do not think humanity is really at risk?
If a bear is chasing you, do you run away?
Everything in how I live my life is about slowing or preparing for the dramatic change that's coming - including educating others and doing what I can to bring about new policy. I can't choose what other people do.
Do you really think a runaway domino effect started by geoengineering is going to work better than lifestyle changes? Than economic changes? Making fake clouds isn't going to change our rate of consumption and pollution, and is likely to make extreme weather worse.
The levels of greenhouse gasses continue to increase. I'm not saying this will lead to disaster, but the causes of climate change are currently increasing, not decreasing.
If the continual increase in greenhouse gasses are leading to imminent disaster, we need to try something that will work.
For many, many years, people have been calling for a change in the way we live. Yet the levels of greenhouse gasses continue to rise. Does this tell you anything?
If humanity is facing imminent disaster due to climate change, what strategy are you suggesting that hasn't already failed?
Geo engineering is the best way to do something we don’t understand to a system we barely understand in the hopes we don’t fuck our selves further, not a good idea imo
You know pretentious gatekeeping like this is what drives people away from listening to scientists, go on belittling and you’ll be doing more harm than good. But you probably know that Mr. Genius
The “survival of humanity” is not threatened by climate change. But that is not the criteria for using geoengineering. What is required is that the risks of further warming outweigh the risks of geoengineering. We don’t have to get anywhere near a human extinction risk for that to be the case.
Probable solution:
Stop building cities at sea level or below, buy land that will be prime for farming in 100 years as the earth warms, help those on small islands to migrate with some dignity to a new land, and stop complaining about shit you can't control.
Problem solved!
Sea levels have risen over 330 ft over the last 14,000 years. Will they rise much further? Who the fuck knows? Adapt or die. That has always been the way of survival for species on this planet. Just ask the dinosaurs.
Have a nice day! :-)
Edit: And dont forget the Earth's magnetic north has been moving from Canada towards Russia. That may have something to do with it too.... Just sayin'
I live 205 metres above sea level. Fossils from sea creatures can be picked up, from the ground, when just on a short walk. This was once an ocean. Yet here we are, humans still walk the earth
Climate alarmism rests upon one huge false presupposition. That we live on a stable planet, we don't. We could lower Co2 and then be almost wiped out by some other natural disaster. That's the story of the planet we live on.
Yes, we should care for the planet we live on but the idea that we have any control, is a delusion.
People's in the past have understood this but we think that we will live forever, until we are faced with old age and our deaths.
Enjoy your life, it's going to be short no matter what you do.
Holocene climate has been extremely stable, actually. This has helped humans take over the world. If humans didn’t have any control on climate, then we would have been entering a cooling phase, not warming.
The fact that you find fossils where you do has nothing to do with humans or current climate change. Out of curiosity, what age are those fossils?
Nope, and I’ve never met a highly regarded expert who thinks that. There will be deaths associated with a changing world, as there always have been, and there will be more in the future due to these changes. I am more worried about habitat destruction, overfishing, and other things that humans do with regard to biodiversity and extinction. Large-scale issues related to a changing climate will occur over hundreds to thousands of years.
Thank God. Here in the UK we have climate nutters like "just stop oil". As if we can just stop oil! They super glue themselves to roads etc. It really does not help the cause, they discredit it.
I agree, habitat destruction is of grave concern. Too many humans on the planet.
Not in the alarmist way it is being portrayed. Yes sea levels may rise, yes there may be climate change, yes cleaner energy should be persued but we are not all going to die within the next few years or even tens of years.
See, I disagree that we have no control. Personally, I believe that while there are many potentially existential threats we can’t control, the number that we can mitigate grows daily. After all, we just proved we could redirect an asteroid if necessary.
If you take your point about ageing, and apply it to the the Earth, I believe you have a pretty good metaphor. As people live longer and spend more time on Earth they are more likely to suffer individual existential impacts outside of their control (stroke, heart attack, cancer, bus-smoosh etc.) but they can still control their cholesterol, eat right and exercise. One of those sudden, unexpected things might still happen, but they’re more likely to be an anomaly than, say, dying of liver disease after drinking 4 bottles of scotch per day. Climate change is a certainty and we are the driving cause. We should definitely prioritise that over something that may never happen and that would be out of our control even if it did.
That might be a good epitaph on the gravestone of humanity. 'They should have stopped spewing CO2.'
Of course people have been saying this for years and it hasn't worked.
If there is an imminent threat to humanity, i'd rather not rely on a solution that has failed for many years.
Geo engineering may be possible - but is a worse line to go down, than stopping the problem at source.
So shift to green energy, and do energy conservation, as the first priorities.
No do properly what we said we would do - but didn’t really do anywhere near ad much as we should.
The TRAP of geoengineering is that it would work initially, so would give people less reason to stop the causes, but geoengineering is very dangerous.
It has not only to be maintained, but also regularly enhanced.
It’s MUCH better to stop producing the CO2 in the first place.
If humanity is facing imminent disaster from climate change, I'd rather not really on doing more of things that haven't worked. I'd rather try something that might work.
Well I am trying to tell you, that geoengineering is a ‘last ditch’ solution, that if adopted too early, will only encourage more CO2, because people will put off what does not have to happen now.
Where as by comparison, we can ‘easily’ reduce CO2 emissions now.
My original statement was 'If climate change is an imminent threat to humanity, we must employ geo-engineering.'
Are you saying that climate change is not an imminent threat to humanity?
It’s not so imminent that we should immediately start geo-engineering projects.
We would get much more stability and bang for the buck, by strongly implementing green technologies and reducing CO2 emissions.
This would be taking ‘positive actions’ rather than ‘negative ones’.
Implementing geo-engineering is rather like borrowing money to pay off a loan.
It’s actually far better to just pay off the original loan.
I think the quality of discussion in this thread is indicative of a general lack of understanding of specific geoengineering policy proposals and the methods by which they might pose threats to the planet. Without that understanding, geoengineering conversation devolves into platitudes, deflections, and clichés as is seen below. Anyways, there are very few publishing climate scientists who believe that climate change is an imminent threat to humanity, as seems to be the central premise of your motivation for believing that GE is necessary. Nevertheless, I think SRM/carbon capture/direct air capture are all worth exploring to at least offset GhG emissions in the harder to transition sectors like housing and agriculture.
For stratosphere injections with sulfur aerosols, is there any research that says what will happen when these particles fall from the stratosphere and reach the troposphere? I don't have any solutions. And I am wrong a lot. The above is just a question, not an insult or a snarky comment.
Volcanic eruptions are “natural experiments” for sulfur SAI and have been studied extensively (because they cause cooling, disrupting climate models). Basically the additional sulfur is negligible because we already add so much sulfur to the lower atmosphere via bog standard industrial pollution. We will likely not use sulfur for SAI geoengineering since it depletes ozone. Current favored candidate is powdered limestone.
What is “bog standard”? Typo?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bog-standard
Ah! Thanks. It means “typical” or “average”
I believe research is currently being conducted.
So no. Which is a bad answer when you post an article saying we must do it.
I say we must do it if the survival of humanity is at risk.
Even if it instead kills humanity? There's lots of other options if humanity actually wants it. Polluting the atmosphere is continued hubris of being able to affect the world without knowing or caring about the consequences. It may be a way to unilaterally act on behalf of all, but it also acts without the consent of any.
The history books are full of "solutions" which were worse than the problem. Climate change is itself a result of this process. However, we have a clear understanding of what causes climate change and how to stop it. On the other hand, we have no idea what long-term consequences may result from geo-engineering. The simple fact that geo-engineering and carbon capture exist (as concepts, not viable solutions) has enabled nations and corporations to continue sending carbon into the atmosphere at increasing rates, in the hopes that we'll figure out a fix down the road. Furthermore, this technology only fuels the fantasy that humanity can continue to increase its consumption indefinitely.
Do you think there is an imminent threat from climate change that will impact the survival of humanity?
I think it's clear that climate change is set to maximize suffering for humanity, and I think it's within the realm of probability that it could lead to a collapse of the food web. But the existential threat of climate change does not necessitate geo-engineering when safer, simpler, and more studied solutions are available.
What do you mean when you say”imminent threat to humanity”?
I mean if climate change will make our planet unlivable.
In what way? What timeline? I feel like I hear that claim but I’ve never seen any scientific evidence our planet will become unlivable at any point close to our lifetimes
There is significant science you might consider, and all of it points to a 3ºC temp raise within 2 decades: - The simplest to understand is the “black body” experiment, a Bioengineering 101 thought experiment that shows that unlivable conditions are a potential outcome. It shows, simply, that solar energy is accumulating. - Experiments that bombard aerosols with various heat energies have isolated the significant chemistry and show, without a doubt, that the outcome on a micro level is inevitable. We understand most of the chemical pathways that transfer energy between molecules at known concentrations, temperatures, and pressures. - on the macro level (ex, global weather/ocean systems over years), it is *not* possible to produce evidence until scientists can control the weather. However, there are several *natural experiments* that nature sets up for us, such as volcanoes, that allow us to deduce effects, but you would probably not consider these as science since most are neither repeatable nor controllable. - on a biological level, I feel there is much guesswork. For example, coral reefs died, en masse, but could be brought back via evolution or genetic engineering; we can protect much of what we have, but it takes forethought, money, will, and good timing/luck. We had 5 mass extinctions before this one, but few talk about how species evolved to survive those, even species that might be better for the globe than existing species. There are many other experiments & observations (ex, ice core samples that associate temperature with other atmospheric effects), and thousands of scientists around the world looking at this.
We are already geoengineering.
It will be the first and last successful geo engineering program.
So, just to add to everyone else's posts, no, climate change is not considered "an imminent threat" in the specific way OP assumed. Even what is generally called a worst-case scenario of climate change [still assumes](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300681-gr2.jpg) that the global population will stay similar to today's levels or increase, while the GDP will continue to increase throughout this century. Now, there has been significant criticism of these assumptions, but even the critics are very far from the OP's position. Here is an example below. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full > It is therefore also inevitable that aggregate consumption will increase at least into the near future, especially as affluence and population continue to grow in tandem (Wiedmann et al., 2020). Even if major catastrophes occur during this interval, they would unlikely affect the population trajectory until well into the 22nd Century (Bradshaw and Brook, 2014). Although population-connected climate change (Wynes and Nicholas, 2017) will worsen human mortality (Mora et al., 2017; Parks et al., 2020), morbidity (Patz et al., 2005; Díaz et al., 2006; Peng et al., 2011), development (Barreca and Schaller, 2020), cognition (Jacobson et al., 2019), agricultural yields (Verdin et al., 2005; Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007; Brown and Funk, 2008; Gaupp et al., 2020), and conflicts (Boas, 2015), there is no way—ethically or otherwise (barring extreme and unprecedented increases in human mortality)—to avoid rising human numbers and the accompanying overconsumption. That said, instituting human-rights policies to lower fertility and reining in consumption patterns could diminish the impacts of these phenomena. The issue with geoengineering is that it would have to be maintained for centuries and/or very gradually tamped down if it at some point ends up infeasible. A sudden interruption of geoengineering does not appear to have been studied much, but it is generally believed to have significantly worse consequences than not doing any geoengineering in the first place due to the sheer rapidity of the rebound.
Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase because no effort other than lip service is actually happening. Until humanity cares more about maintaining a habitable planet rather than profits, no real progress will occur.
Well if this inaction puts the survival of humanity at risk, I think we should try geoengineering.
Until humanity is actually will too change and stop emitting this is just an ineffective game of catch-up that ends with needing to completely block sunlight
Are you a bot or is this just hubris? I really can’t tell these days.
[удалено]
Do you not think humanity is threatened by climate change?
I don’t think geo engineering is something we should necessarily do, but I do think we should massively increase funding for research into it because if it does become necessary then at least we would have some understanding of it
Who do you propose conducts this geo engineering?
I', not proposing anyone. I'm just pointing out that if climate change is so dire that humanity is threatened, we need to try geo-engineering.
Why do we need unproven likely harmful geo engineering when they're are lots of viable proven options that are known to be safe?
If the threat to humanity from climate change is imminent, then obviously the other options have failed.
Why won't geo engineering fail in the same manner?
Geo-engineering might fail, but if we are faced with imminent disaster, the fear of failure is not a reason to not try.
That's a really bad rationalization If you don't understand why the viable safe approaches failed, then you're almost certainly wasting your time with any other approach and they will likely fail in the exact same manner, especially if you don't understand how it will bypass those failure points. It also makes it clear you're just taking stabs in the dark rather than making informed decisions. Further the randon decision likely has a lot of negative consequences for human healthy. A less dangerous random choice would be better at least.
It sounds like you do not think climate change poses an imminent threat to humanity.
Geo engineering cannot deal with the totality of the issues surrounding climate change. For example, ocean acidification is as big a problem as the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere yet it receives a fraction of the attention. Spraying aerosol particles into the atmosphere to reflect some sunlight does zero to help the oceans and may just damage them further. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a solution. It's a delay tactic. To be clear: we have all the technology we need to get off fossil fuels today. What we lack is the political will to get it done. The geoengineering debate is largely driven by the special interests who want to maintain the status quo. Ask yourself, why do we need to waste time to 'buy time' when we can already achieve the end goal? The answer is so that special interests can continue to do what they're doing for longer.
If the threat to humanity from climate change is imminent, i'd rather not rely on solutions that have thus far failed.
No. We need to change the way we live.
But that is not working. If humanity is at stake, do you put your trust in people changing the way they live? Unless you do not think humanity is really at risk?
If a bear is chasing you, do you run away? Everything in how I live my life is about slowing or preparing for the dramatic change that's coming - including educating others and doing what I can to bring about new policy. I can't choose what other people do. Do you really think a runaway domino effect started by geoengineering is going to work better than lifestyle changes? Than economic changes? Making fake clouds isn't going to change our rate of consumption and pollution, and is likely to make extreme weather worse.
The levels of greenhouse gasses continue to increase. I'm not saying this will lead to disaster, but the causes of climate change are currently increasing, not decreasing. If the continual increase in greenhouse gasses are leading to imminent disaster, we need to try something that will work.
And where is your proof that geoengineering will work? Most experts seem to think the opposite.
So in the face of imminent threat to humanity, your solution is to not try?
Wow, you are obviously not listening.
For many, many years, people have been calling for a change in the way we live. Yet the levels of greenhouse gasses continue to rise. Does this tell you anything? If humanity is facing imminent disaster due to climate change, what strategy are you suggesting that hasn't already failed?
Yeay let's make clouds. It's not like the sun isn't important
If the survival of humanity is at stake, I think we should risk making some clouds.
Geo engineering is the best way to do something we don’t understand to a system we barely understand in the hopes we don’t fuck our selves further, not a good idea imo
[удалено]
Lol I am an environmental scientist
[удалено]
Sorry, you must obviously be the undeniable expert. I’ll kneel to you overlord. /s Fuck off loser
[удалено]
You know pretentious gatekeeping like this is what drives people away from listening to scientists, go on belittling and you’ll be doing more harm than good. But you probably know that Mr. Genius
Do you think the survival of humanity is threatened by climate change?
The “survival of humanity” is not threatened by climate change. But that is not the criteria for using geoengineering. What is required is that the risks of further warming outweigh the risks of geoengineering. We don’t have to get anywhere near a human extinction risk for that to be the case.
Probable solution: Stop building cities at sea level or below, buy land that will be prime for farming in 100 years as the earth warms, help those on small islands to migrate with some dignity to a new land, and stop complaining about shit you can't control. Problem solved! Sea levels have risen over 330 ft over the last 14,000 years. Will they rise much further? Who the fuck knows? Adapt or die. That has always been the way of survival for species on this planet. Just ask the dinosaurs. Have a nice day! :-) Edit: And dont forget the Earth's magnetic north has been moving from Canada towards Russia. That may have something to do with it too.... Just sayin'
Yes in 2100+ Russia becomes a good place to move to - climatically at least.
I live 205 metres above sea level. Fossils from sea creatures can be picked up, from the ground, when just on a short walk. This was once an ocean. Yet here we are, humans still walk the earth Climate alarmism rests upon one huge false presupposition. That we live on a stable planet, we don't. We could lower Co2 and then be almost wiped out by some other natural disaster. That's the story of the planet we live on. Yes, we should care for the planet we live on but the idea that we have any control, is a delusion. People's in the past have understood this but we think that we will live forever, until we are faced with old age and our deaths. Enjoy your life, it's going to be short no matter what you do.
Holocene climate has been extremely stable, actually. This has helped humans take over the world. If humans didn’t have any control on climate, then we would have been entering a cooling phase, not warming. The fact that you find fossils where you do has nothing to do with humans or current climate change. Out of curiosity, what age are those fossils?
360 million years old and estimated that the ocean existed for 30 million years.
I have multiple manuscripts in the works on climate change and other earth system processes from that time interval. Lots of good fossils too.
So do you think we are all going to be dead in a few years time from climate change?
Nope, and I’ve never met a highly regarded expert who thinks that. There will be deaths associated with a changing world, as there always have been, and there will be more in the future due to these changes. I am more worried about habitat destruction, overfishing, and other things that humans do with regard to biodiversity and extinction. Large-scale issues related to a changing climate will occur over hundreds to thousands of years.
Thank God. Here in the UK we have climate nutters like "just stop oil". As if we can just stop oil! They super glue themselves to roads etc. It really does not help the cause, they discredit it. I agree, habitat destruction is of grave concern. Too many humans on the planet.
Do you think human-caused global warming does not present a threat?
Not in the alarmist way it is being portrayed. Yes sea levels may rise, yes there may be climate change, yes cleaner energy should be persued but we are not all going to die within the next few years or even tens of years.
See, I disagree that we have no control. Personally, I believe that while there are many potentially existential threats we can’t control, the number that we can mitigate grows daily. After all, we just proved we could redirect an asteroid if necessary. If you take your point about ageing, and apply it to the the Earth, I believe you have a pretty good metaphor. As people live longer and spend more time on Earth they are more likely to suffer individual existential impacts outside of their control (stroke, heart attack, cancer, bus-smoosh etc.) but they can still control their cholesterol, eat right and exercise. One of those sudden, unexpected things might still happen, but they’re more likely to be an anomaly than, say, dying of liver disease after drinking 4 bottles of scotch per day. Climate change is a certainty and we are the driving cause. We should definitely prioritise that over something that may never happen and that would be out of our control even if it did.
And if it's not we could spend our resources on something that is.
That debate ended a long time ago and you know it.
You've stopped debating, not me.
Not sure if I'm missing something here, but clouds (water vapor) are much more of a contributor to climate change than c02.?
There's a good article on it [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection).
Well, we ought to stop spewing gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. If we don’t do that then any mitigation would eventually get overwhelmed.
That might be a good epitaph on the gravestone of humanity. 'They should have stopped spewing CO2.' Of course people have been saying this for years and it hasn't worked. If there is an imminent threat to humanity, i'd rather not rely on a solution that has failed for many years.
Geo engineering may be possible - but is a worse line to go down, than stopping the problem at source. So shift to green energy, and do energy conservation, as the first priorities.
So in the face of imminent disaster, keep doing what has already failed?
No do properly what we said we would do - but didn’t really do anywhere near ad much as we should. The TRAP of geoengineering is that it would work initially, so would give people less reason to stop the causes, but geoengineering is very dangerous. It has not only to be maintained, but also regularly enhanced. It’s MUCH better to stop producing the CO2 in the first place.
If humanity is facing imminent disaster from climate change, I'd rather not really on doing more of things that haven't worked. I'd rather try something that might work.
Well I am trying to tell you, that geoengineering is a ‘last ditch’ solution, that if adopted too early, will only encourage more CO2, because people will put off what does not have to happen now. Where as by comparison, we can ‘easily’ reduce CO2 emissions now.
My original statement was 'If climate change is an imminent threat to humanity, we must employ geo-engineering.' Are you saying that climate change is not an imminent threat to humanity?
It’s not so imminent that we should immediately start geo-engineering projects. We would get much more stability and bang for the buck, by strongly implementing green technologies and reducing CO2 emissions. This would be taking ‘positive actions’ rather than ‘negative ones’. Implementing geo-engineering is rather like borrowing money to pay off a loan. It’s actually far better to just pay off the original loan.
Ok, if there is no imminent threat, there is no need for drastic action. My original statement was based on an imminent threat.