A problem with resistance to geoengineering is that there effectively isn't a "no geoengineering whatsoever" option either, because the whole point of "anthropogenic climate change" is that we're already doing it and have been doing it about as long as we've been human. (Not just since the Industrial Revolution or even agriculture - ancient humans would burn forests on purpose for reasons like flushing out game, or making more plains and clearings to hunt in.) Humanity has a lasting impact on the planet - this fact is already baked in - and our actual choice is what of that impact is intentional.
For that matter, Mother Nature is not a real person, has even less coordination than humanity, and will sometimes do things that don't contribute to a steady state equilibrium. Remember the ancient human wildfire strategy I mentioned? Several predator bird species do the same thing for the same reasons, if they can grab a burning branch from a lightning strike or something.
Anyway, a problem with comparing things to the size of the USA is that you have to specify the Lower 48, or the inclusion of other territories and Alaska in particular really changes the comparison.
I'd also point out that we basically got into this mess through untinentional geo-engineering by pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so it's not like we haven't already been doing this. Now, that doesn't exactly make the case against unintended consequences, but reversing one form of geo-engineering with another doesn't sound quite as crazy. Especially if we take an incremental, conservative approach aimed at taking the edge off of climate change and buying time, rather than seeing this as a long-term solution. Ofc, that's going to be the temptation.
One of, if not the best, articles on climate change I have ever read. The footnotes are excellent, especially the Sahara comparison. I plan to share the hell out of this.
The problem is. Arguing with druids is hard. See. There are two types of environmentalist. The ones that want people to exist past the next few hundred years. So they’re into things like nuclear, and fission, and yeah feo engineering. And then. Then there’s Druids. It’s pretty easy to spot the difference. Druids tie themselves to trees. They throw soup on art. And they glue themselves to highways.
Druids can’t be argued with because for Druids the solutions aren’t enough. We need to be punished for our transgressions agains Gaia, earth mother.
Sadly Druids control a lot of the conversation about climate change. And they’re all chicken Little’s. To them we just. You know. Stop burning fossil fuels because it’s bad. Fuck poor people in India. Fuck inexpensive light after dark. Fuck meat eaters. See to Druids we not only need to stop polluting we need to quit cold turkey. Because Gaia is mad at us and we should suffer for it.
The problem with Druids is they think nature wants us to live in harmony. In fact they think nature is a beautiful harmonious web that we’ve come along and fucked up. Bull and shit. Nature is trying to kill us. I’m tact nature is trying to kill just about everything (not trying obviously. Nature doesn’t have a direction it’s just for effect). The beautiful web of life is more like a web of death. Evolutionary processes have been going on for millions of years to stave off entropy. Naturally there is nothing and the universe is headed back to nothing. If nature and human beings were both personified by two people nature would be seen as the abusive drunk husband that battered humanity for about 20,000 years until a couple hundred years ago humans decided to stand up for themselves. That’s humanity’s history with “nature”.
So should we be wasteful? No. But the way out is the same as the way in. Technology and adaptation. The whole “we can stem it” ship sailed. We need to move into the “we can fix it” step of the problem. And yeah. If that means we start farming a little more north and a little more south that’s what we gotta do.
It’s utterly unfair to ask future generations to live worse lives than people have been.
Druids already fucked us 40 years ago by putting the lid on nuclear. And that’s the problem. Nuclear was a good compromise. Yeah there’s waste and yeah maybe you get a meltdown every 30 years that effects a few thousand people. But hey. Plains crash too. But we all accept the trade off and we all accept it will get better the more we did it. And it did.
In fact nuclear is the best example of how Druids can’t actually face compromise. They either want us to “live off the air, water, and sun man!” Or just starve the population until it’s down to a manageable size. Selfish fanaticism.
There’s been a modern trend amongst certain young people to make fun of “ghostbusters” for making the EPA the villain? And that confuses me. The whole point of that character is that environmentalists were smug self serving little shits that will self righteously shut down new technology out of a self entitled self righteous sense of moral superiority.
I think you're far too charitable to the climate change movement in your minimization of the quasi-religious fanaticists who oppose any solution that isn't de-industrialization and effective impoverishment of humanity. The fact that they control such a disproportionate share of the discourse around the issue is a serious problem that has hampered myriad solutions, including rollout of alternative renewables because solar, wind, etc. have other negative externalities on natural habitats.
That first tweet mentioned makes me think, that some people prefer more social engineering over anything else :) And climate change is just a good excuse. One would say that they more hate other people who are doing things they disapprove, than love the planet - "yeah, we might have saved our Mother Nature, but was it worth it, if people are still driving their cars and flying planes?". And I'm afraid that this thinking is not specific to just this area, but it's pretty widespread.
Exactly - if we do a lot of things that have a small impact, (a) we can start now and (b) we will learn which ones are cost effective.
To be honest I rather like the white paint idea. In particular it helps mitigate the problems caused by emissions in countries on the other side of the world. And I guess if humanity overdoes it, we can just strip the paint again.
That is probably the missing element to making geoengineering less controversial - easy reversibility.
Given humanity's knack of overdoing things or getting the wrong end of the stick, giant plans to reshape the world usually end up with a result worse than the starting point (Aral sea, etc.) so we need a way to back out of too much cleverness.
Which applies just as much to the eco-nutter pressure to summarily close down large chunks of the economy in their countries - if it doesn't deliver the hoped-for results, or has unexpected side-effects, oopise - what do we try next.
We need either geo-engineering or social engineering. And sadly, geo-engineering is way easier to do. But it's not a complete solution; as long as our civilization lives by the reptile-brain "take all you want, then grab more for later" mentality, anything else is a temporary fix. It's like weight loss; do we change society to promote healthy living, re-think our attitudes towards food, and re-balance our lives, or do we give people pills?
I pondered signing this (about *solar* geoeng), basically based on its logic (mainly the impossibility of trust and meaningful legitimate PR on a global scale, but also in doubt that the *global* average is the right target to reduce by hook or by crook, no matter the geographical pattern of it). But I was eventually convinced that maaayyybe there will be an unambiguously bad enough situation, truly driven by the global average temperature, where this could be the least bad option. In other words, I reserved a sliver of possible trust for centralized expertise
A problem with resistance to geoengineering is that there effectively isn't a "no geoengineering whatsoever" option either, because the whole point of "anthropogenic climate change" is that we're already doing it and have been doing it about as long as we've been human. (Not just since the Industrial Revolution or even agriculture - ancient humans would burn forests on purpose for reasons like flushing out game, or making more plains and clearings to hunt in.) Humanity has a lasting impact on the planet - this fact is already baked in - and our actual choice is what of that impact is intentional.
For that matter, Mother Nature is not a real person, has even less coordination than humanity, and will sometimes do things that don't contribute to a steady state equilibrium. Remember the ancient human wildfire strategy I mentioned? Several predator bird species do the same thing for the same reasons, if they can grab a burning branch from a lightning strike or something.
Anyway, a problem with comparing things to the size of the USA is that you have to specify the Lower 48, or the inclusion of other territories and Alaska in particular really changes the comparison.
I'd also point out that we basically got into this mess through untinentional geo-engineering by pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so it's not like we haven't already been doing this. Now, that doesn't exactly make the case against unintended consequences, but reversing one form of geo-engineering with another doesn't sound quite as crazy. Especially if we take an incremental, conservative approach aimed at taking the edge off of climate change and buying time, rather than seeing this as a long-term solution. Ofc, that's going to be the temptation.
One of, if not the best, articles on climate change I have ever read. The footnotes are excellent, especially the Sahara comparison. I plan to share the hell out of this.
The problem is. Arguing with druids is hard. See. There are two types of environmentalist. The ones that want people to exist past the next few hundred years. So they’re into things like nuclear, and fission, and yeah feo engineering. And then. Then there’s Druids. It’s pretty easy to spot the difference. Druids tie themselves to trees. They throw soup on art. And they glue themselves to highways.
Druids can’t be argued with because for Druids the solutions aren’t enough. We need to be punished for our transgressions agains Gaia, earth mother.
Sadly Druids control a lot of the conversation about climate change. And they’re all chicken Little’s. To them we just. You know. Stop burning fossil fuels because it’s bad. Fuck poor people in India. Fuck inexpensive light after dark. Fuck meat eaters. See to Druids we not only need to stop polluting we need to quit cold turkey. Because Gaia is mad at us and we should suffer for it.
The problem with Druids is they think nature wants us to live in harmony. In fact they think nature is a beautiful harmonious web that we’ve come along and fucked up. Bull and shit. Nature is trying to kill us. I’m tact nature is trying to kill just about everything (not trying obviously. Nature doesn’t have a direction it’s just for effect). The beautiful web of life is more like a web of death. Evolutionary processes have been going on for millions of years to stave off entropy. Naturally there is nothing and the universe is headed back to nothing. If nature and human beings were both personified by two people nature would be seen as the abusive drunk husband that battered humanity for about 20,000 years until a couple hundred years ago humans decided to stand up for themselves. That’s humanity’s history with “nature”.
So should we be wasteful? No. But the way out is the same as the way in. Technology and adaptation. The whole “we can stem it” ship sailed. We need to move into the “we can fix it” step of the problem. And yeah. If that means we start farming a little more north and a little more south that’s what we gotta do.
It’s utterly unfair to ask future generations to live worse lives than people have been.
Druids already fucked us 40 years ago by putting the lid on nuclear. And that’s the problem. Nuclear was a good compromise. Yeah there’s waste and yeah maybe you get a meltdown every 30 years that effects a few thousand people. But hey. Plains crash too. But we all accept the trade off and we all accept it will get better the more we did it. And it did.
In fact nuclear is the best example of how Druids can’t actually face compromise. They either want us to “live off the air, water, and sun man!” Or just starve the population until it’s down to a manageable size. Selfish fanaticism.
There’s been a modern trend amongst certain young people to make fun of “ghostbusters” for making the EPA the villain? And that confuses me. The whole point of that character is that environmentalists were smug self serving little shits that will self righteously shut down new technology out of a self entitled self righteous sense of moral superiority.
I think you're far too charitable to the climate change movement in your minimization of the quasi-religious fanaticists who oppose any solution that isn't de-industrialization and effective impoverishment of humanity. The fact that they control such a disproportionate share of the discourse around the issue is a serious problem that has hampered myriad solutions, including rollout of alternative renewables because solar, wind, etc. have other negative externalities on natural habitats.
That first tweet mentioned makes me think, that some people prefer more social engineering over anything else :) And climate change is just a good excuse. One would say that they more hate other people who are doing things they disapprove, than love the planet - "yeah, we might have saved our Mother Nature, but was it worth it, if people are still driving their cars and flying planes?". And I'm afraid that this thinking is not specific to just this area, but it's pretty widespread.
As a proud Boilermaker, I’d like to point out that it is Purdue University (as opposed to Perdue Chicken).
Exactly - if we do a lot of things that have a small impact, (a) we can start now and (b) we will learn which ones are cost effective.
To be honest I rather like the white paint idea. In particular it helps mitigate the problems caused by emissions in countries on the other side of the world. And I guess if humanity overdoes it, we can just strip the paint again.
That is probably the missing element to making geoengineering less controversial - easy reversibility.
Given humanity's knack of overdoing things or getting the wrong end of the stick, giant plans to reshape the world usually end up with a result worse than the starting point (Aral sea, etc.) so we need a way to back out of too much cleverness.
Which applies just as much to the eco-nutter pressure to summarily close down large chunks of the economy in their countries - if it doesn't deliver the hoped-for results, or has unexpected side-effects, oopise - what do we try next.
Glad to see someone else who equates Radiohead with motorcycle gang apocalypse scenarios
We need either geo-engineering or social engineering. And sadly, geo-engineering is way easier to do. But it's not a complete solution; as long as our civilization lives by the reptile-brain "take all you want, then grab more for later" mentality, anything else is a temporary fix. It's like weight loss; do we change society to promote healthy living, re-think our attitudes towards food, and re-balance our lives, or do we give people pills?
I totally agree: Radiohead is insufferable...
You actually used the word "nuanced" on the Internet. I'm taking over/unders on the hours until you're banned or disappeared.
Geoengineeringwatch.org
I pondered signing this (about *solar* geoeng), basically based on its logic (mainly the impossibility of trust and meaningful legitimate PR on a global scale, but also in doubt that the *global* average is the right target to reduce by hook or by crook, no matter the geographical pattern of it). But I was eventually convinced that maaayyybe there will be an unambiguously bad enough situation, truly driven by the global average temperature, where this could be the least bad option. In other words, I reserved a sliver of possible trust for centralized expertise
https://www.solargeoeng.org/
It's pretty clear that we're going to have to pull out all the stops to limit the damage from global warming.
If you look at global emissions of CO2, the picture isn't pretty:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions#global-emissions-have-not-yet-peaked
We got a small one year dip in 2020, but the big picture is still pretty ugly.
LOOK UP