5 comments

[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 23.5 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
The world was outraged at one man dumping 100 tons of iron sulfate into the ocean? Where was the outrage at dumping 9.575 billion tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere that year [1]? Where was the outrage at Exxon spending $12,970,000 on lobbying that year [2]?

The problem is the idea of one person geoengineering the climate. But we've been doing that unintentionally for decades already at an enormous scale. What would the response have been if a dump with the same material had happened, by accident, with no intentions of any climate impact? I think the world would be better off with climate vigilantes doing what they can to fix the climate than everyone passively waiting for world governments to act and behaving in incredibly confined nearly useless ways (like putting your plastic bottles in the recycling container).

[1] https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00000012...

> I think the world would be better off with climate vigilantes doing what they can to fix the climate.

I don't think I agree on that point. A small group of people with good intentions can do a lot of damage. See, for instance, all the attempts to introduce X alien species to a new environment to help with problem Y, and it turns out X likes its home a little too much.

I absolutely agree with your first paragraph though, and the crux of your point.

How is this any different from artificially putting nitrates into soil for crop fertilization?