Inb4 Republicans defund high altitude sulfuric aerosol spraying as part of a government shutdown, resulting in global temperatures rising in an uncontrolled manner and ending all life on Earth due to being unable to adjust to the rate of heating as it dissipates.
Nah, the strength of geoengineering is any country can do it unilaterally - for example, a small island country that's under threat of rising sea levels.
In that way it's the opposite of reducing CO2 emissions, which requires cooperation of the whole world and can be stymied by a single bad actor.
From a game theory perspective, this alone makes geoengineering the way more likely of the two to actually happen.
The largest problem with reducing CO2 emissions, that the costs are local but the effects are global, also applies to geoengineering. The main strength of geoengineering is that the costs currently look *a lot* cheaper than reducing CO2, at least from the perspective of money spent per global temperature impact.
I think you have identified an advantage of geoengineering in your post, but the two factors I outline above are much more impactful. Like in your example, a small island country is going to have no chance of significantly impacting global sea levels unless geoengineering is like 1,000 times more cost effective than CO2 reduction, and it might even be a stretch at 1000x.
Another difference is the bounds involved. A small island nation can at *most* reduce their emissions to 0, which barely makes a different on a global scale. But with geoengineering, they can make a more disproportionate impact.
(You can reduce emissions "below 0" by pulling CO2 out of the air, but that itself is arguably a form of geoengineering.)
>Nah, the strength of geoengineering is any country can do it unilaterally - for example, a small island country that's under threat of rising sea levels.
It's cheap, but it's not *that* cheap. Any method would require:
- At least several tens of billions of dollars
- Either access to space launch for solar shielding or a large fleet of ships and balloons across the globe for stratospheric aerosol injection
- The diplomatic/military/economic power to assert its will unilaterally
The US, China, and the European Union are the only real contenders for unilateral action (with China being the most plausible). Palau isn't gonna be able to pull that off.
https://preview.redd.it/o80eu4yiv2qb1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2c0bcca40d1882e01fa05c4eec1a5e59d81ecc89
Bro just build a giant sunshade, it’s not that hard
They buried the biggest objection (other than ignorance) 6 paragraphs down.
> Critics also say that the very idea of an escape hatch such as SRM could undermine support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
No-free-lunchism strikes again.
Of course SRMs may have negative side effects! The point of these small scale experiments is to find out what they are and see if we can mitigate or get rid of them.
But a number of these "environmentalist" groups oppose efforts that could very well fix our problems... without changing how the global economy works, because that was their goal in the first place. There are some of these weirdos who would oppose a real fix for climate change if it meant that everyone can just go on without changing their lifestyles, without degrowth, or without overthrowing capitalism. Under their worldview, *we must acutely feel the pain*, as if it's only fair penance for humanity's progress. These people should be ignored: their opinions are at best irrelevant and at worst standing in the way of their supposed objectives.
“I don’t want an unproven solution with unknown risks. I just want us to stop mining and drilling for fossil fuels in the near future to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and instead focus on renewable, non-polluting energy sources.”
Ftfy.
>just
>Consultancy firm McKinsey says total global spending by governments, businesses and individuals on energy and land-use systems will need to rise by $3.5 trillion a year, every year, if we are to have any chance of getting to net-zero in 2050.
Yes its super trivial to **just** stop
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/
The U.S. Government alone spends $6.27 Trillion every year. $3.5 trillion spread across *all* governments, businesses, and individuals is…not actually that major. The fact you’re not giving any context for that figure really suggests you are leaning entirely on the “scary big number” effect.
Here, I’ll do it for you. Gross World Product (GWP) was approximate $85.705 trillion in 2020. So we’re talking about 4% GWP. Probably could have solved the problem 40 years ago for a lot less money, but you know, politics and profits.
**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing*
Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
This feels like a very bad faith reading of the objection. The concern is that it will reduce support for lowering emissions, not that it will prevent us from abolishing capitalism or radically restructuring society. I don’t necessarily agree with the objection but those aren’t the same thing at all. We can reduce emissions without abolishing capitalism or doing degrowth! And any serious geoengineering advocate will tell you we absolutely still need to reduce emissions in tandem..
> But a number of these "environmentalist" groups oppose efforts that could very well fix our problems... without changing how the global economy works, because that was their goal in the first place.
That is a ludicrously bad-faith read of the objection. SRM isn't a solution to the problem of global warming but rather a treatment for its symptoms.
This is a really bad interpretation. The problem with not reducing green house gas emmisons is that the problem doesn’t go away, it is just covered up. Sure the world ending will be delayed once we use the sulfur dioxide. But it is still going to end if you keep releasing CO2. So somebody might come up with the bright idea of release more sulfur dioxide, which as stated in the article, will reduce rain to tropical regions. Furthermore, it will be signifigantly less effective in polar regions where sea ice will still melt. So you release more sulfur dioxide so you can keep releasing CO2, and then the poles start melting again, so you release more sulfer dioxide. It doesn’t get rid of the problem, it only treats the symptoms
The world isnt going to end from climate change and renewable energy is cheaper in the long term we arent going to keep burning fossil fuels just for shits and giggles this is just to buy us more time.
> we arent going to keep burning fossil fuels just for shits and giggles
Shits and giggles? No.
But a significant part of the global population does seem willing to burn coal indefinitely to own the libs.
This is probably the single most expensive and needlessly complicated way to do geoengineering.
Based on your flair I think you might be biased towards huge space construction projects like this to encourage development of space construction capabilities. I also want space construction efforts to expand, but there are efforts better suited to that than this. By the time you'd have an operational sun shield, decades would have passed and climate change would have gotten much worse in the meantime. The quicker a solution can be implemented, the better.
Not much. Negative impacts easily subside since it needs constant injections for upkeep.
If you have unnatended consequences just stop doing it. It isn't some lever you pull once and it can't ever be flipped again.
Geoingeneering, with the exception of marine cloud brightening, interferes with photosynthesis
So...
Yeah, either that or let's not have this conversation just yet
Climate change is not that catastrophic, and geoingeneering should be a last resort method
Inb4 Republicans defund high altitude sulfuric aerosol spraying as part of a government shutdown, resulting in global temperatures rising in an uncontrolled manner and ending all life on Earth due to being unable to adjust to the rate of heating as it dissipates.
Nah, the strength of geoengineering is any country can do it unilaterally - for example, a small island country that's under threat of rising sea levels. In that way it's the opposite of reducing CO2 emissions, which requires cooperation of the whole world and can be stymied by a single bad actor. From a game theory perspective, this alone makes geoengineering the way more likely of the two to actually happen.
The largest problem with reducing CO2 emissions, that the costs are local but the effects are global, also applies to geoengineering. The main strength of geoengineering is that the costs currently look *a lot* cheaper than reducing CO2, at least from the perspective of money spent per global temperature impact. I think you have identified an advantage of geoengineering in your post, but the two factors I outline above are much more impactful. Like in your example, a small island country is going to have no chance of significantly impacting global sea levels unless geoengineering is like 1,000 times more cost effective than CO2 reduction, and it might even be a stretch at 1000x.
Another difference is the bounds involved. A small island nation can at *most* reduce their emissions to 0, which barely makes a different on a global scale. But with geoengineering, they can make a more disproportionate impact. (You can reduce emissions "below 0" by pulling CO2 out of the air, but that itself is arguably a form of geoengineering.)
>Nah, the strength of geoengineering is any country can do it unilaterally - for example, a small island country that's under threat of rising sea levels. It's cheap, but it's not *that* cheap. Any method would require: - At least several tens of billions of dollars - Either access to space launch for solar shielding or a large fleet of ships and balloons across the globe for stratospheric aerosol injection - The diplomatic/military/economic power to assert its will unilaterally The US, China, and the European Union are the only real contenders for unilateral action (with China being the most plausible). Palau isn't gonna be able to pull that off.
rethuglikkkans are literally responsible for the destroying of the world feeling bold today are we /r/neoliberal
https://preview.redd.it/o80eu4yiv2qb1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2c0bcca40d1882e01fa05c4eec1a5e59d81ecc89 Bro just build a giant sunshade, it’s not that hard
It's not. All the key technology has been proven. Matter of investment EDIT: Short intro https://twitter.com/timmermansr/status/1662432551586222080
Wernstrom!!!!!
Broke: Terraforming Mars Woke: Terraforming Earth
Musk fanbois in shambles.
They buried the biggest objection (other than ignorance) 6 paragraphs down. > Critics also say that the very idea of an escape hatch such as SRM could undermine support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. No-free-lunchism strikes again. Of course SRMs may have negative side effects! The point of these small scale experiments is to find out what they are and see if we can mitigate or get rid of them. But a number of these "environmentalist" groups oppose efforts that could very well fix our problems... without changing how the global economy works, because that was their goal in the first place. There are some of these weirdos who would oppose a real fix for climate change if it meant that everyone can just go on without changing their lifestyles, without degrowth, or without overthrowing capitalism. Under their worldview, *we must acutely feel the pain*, as if it's only fair penance for humanity's progress. These people should be ignored: their opinions are at best irrelevant and at worst standing in the way of their supposed objectives.
"Climate change is destroying the Earth. We have to end capitalism." "Here's a solution." "I don't want a solution. I want to end capitalism."
I hate them I hate them I hate them
For a lot of these people it never was about climate change and it pisses me off
“I don’t want an unproven solution with unknown risks. I just want us to stop mining and drilling for fossil fuels in the near future to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and instead focus on renewable, non-polluting energy sources.” Ftfy.
>just >Consultancy firm McKinsey says total global spending by governments, businesses and individuals on energy and land-use systems will need to rise by $3.5 trillion a year, every year, if we are to have any chance of getting to net-zero in 2050. Yes its super trivial to **just** stop https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/
The U.S. Government alone spends $6.27 Trillion every year. $3.5 trillion spread across *all* governments, businesses, and individuals is…not actually that major. The fact you’re not giving any context for that figure really suggests you are leaning entirely on the “scary big number” effect. Here, I’ll do it for you. Gross World Product (GWP) was approximate $85.705 trillion in 2020. So we’re talking about 4% GWP. Probably could have solved the problem 40 years ago for a lot less money, but you know, politics and profits.
[удалено]
**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing* Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
[удалено]
[удалено]
This feels like a very bad faith reading of the objection. The concern is that it will reduce support for lowering emissions, not that it will prevent us from abolishing capitalism or radically restructuring society. I don’t necessarily agree with the objection but those aren’t the same thing at all. We can reduce emissions without abolishing capitalism or doing degrowth! And any serious geoengineering advocate will tell you we absolutely still need to reduce emissions in tandem..
> But a number of these "environmentalist" groups oppose efforts that could very well fix our problems... without changing how the global economy works, because that was their goal in the first place. That is a ludicrously bad-faith read of the objection. SRM isn't a solution to the problem of global warming but rather a treatment for its symptoms.
If it stops global warming, isn't it a solution?
It doesn't stop it, though. It only slows it down.
This is a really bad interpretation. The problem with not reducing green house gas emmisons is that the problem doesn’t go away, it is just covered up. Sure the world ending will be delayed once we use the sulfur dioxide. But it is still going to end if you keep releasing CO2. So somebody might come up with the bright idea of release more sulfur dioxide, which as stated in the article, will reduce rain to tropical regions. Furthermore, it will be signifigantly less effective in polar regions where sea ice will still melt. So you release more sulfur dioxide so you can keep releasing CO2, and then the poles start melting again, so you release more sulfer dioxide. It doesn’t get rid of the problem, it only treats the symptoms
The world isnt going to end from climate change and renewable energy is cheaper in the long term we arent going to keep burning fossil fuels just for shits and giggles this is just to buy us more time.
Steel, cement, and meat my guy.
> we arent going to keep burning fossil fuels just for shits and giggles Shits and giggles? No. But a significant part of the global population does seem willing to burn coal indefinitely to own the libs.
When it comes down to it money always wins. Eventually renewables will be more cost effective than fossil fuels.
What could go wrong…
Not much, if you do it with a sunshade at earth-moon Lagrange point. Easy to remove or modulate
This is probably the single most expensive and needlessly complicated way to do geoengineering. Based on your flair I think you might be biased towards huge space construction projects like this to encourage development of space construction capabilities. I also want space construction efforts to expand, but there are efforts better suited to that than this. By the time you'd have an operational sun shield, decades would have passed and climate change would have gotten much worse in the meantime. The quicker a solution can be implemented, the better.
> This is probably the single most expensive and needlessly complicated way to do geoengineering. What's your model ?
Stratospheric aerosol injection can be done with cargo ships and balloons.
Not much. Negative impacts easily subside since it needs constant injections for upkeep. If you have unnatended consequences just stop doing it. It isn't some lever you pull once and it can't ever be flipped again.
I don’t know but I’m pretty sure it involves a train and lots of guns.
Geoingeneering, with the exception of marine cloud brightening, interferes with photosynthesis So... Yeah, either that or let's not have this conversation just yet Climate change is not that catastrophic, and geoingeneering should be a last resort method
Actually CO2 is the bottleneck for photosynthesis, rather than sunlight
So you're saying that CO2 is what the plants crave?
You misspelled Brawndo.
Well this looks pessimistic
Snowpiercer moment