A lot of geo engineering solutions sound way more cost effective than the currently undertaken mainstream efforts. The issue with geoengineering is the ethical questions it raises.
Only if you are putting stuff into the atmosphere. If you are for instance removing CO2 to sequester it, no one should bat an eye. Same if you put a bunch of green sand somewhere. Really no price should be too high to pay to prevent global warming. It will be a problem which will cost literally trillions of dollars if we don't fix it.
We're already geoengineering without intention to create energy.
This moral question is a red herring.
It's more that those against geoengineering have unrealistic expectations that things can go 'back to the way they were' - some idealized past where the balance of nature is achieved and everything stays static. A fiction created by popular media.
The world hasn't ever been static. With or without humans.
We need a new basic narrative to get out of this way of thinking. It's really that intrinsic. We see the idealized past in Tolkien's work, in Avatar, in Disney movies - they create an idea that the only solution forward is reverse entropy. This is a damaging idea because it removes agency from us humans and leaves it up to the gods in which we'll inevitably come up empty-handed.
EW was never field-tested in any significant capacity. We know nothing about the cost-effectiveness of it, because we hardly understand if it'll work at all.
Hmm so olivine is $25 per ton while coal is $50 per ton. Assuming a roughly equal amount is needed to offset, it could work, increasing energy price by about 50%?
Has anyone studied the wildlife effects (or lack thereof) of natural olivine beaches? They seem healthy in travel magazine photos, but of course that’s no substitute for science.
Well, it's a twist on the trolley problem because there is a background state of coral reefs and beaches dying already. So we're killing the beaches and saving none, presently.
I think this is a case where the trolley problem is easily morally solved; it's morally urgent to slow pace of coral reef death and other marine life death, and since it is already our actions causing this I think it is quite morally right to take any action that reduces the
suffering of life overall.
7 cubic km of olivine is a staggering amount. Makes you wonder whether the effect of deploying the olivine would even offset the energy cost and CO2 emissions of extracting and moving around all that rock.
My first question is why don't they list the TWO independent accounting firms that are auditing this non-profit?
I realize that not all states require nonprofits to conduct audits but this seems like a wonderful area to scam people. "Buy this $300 necklace and save the planet"
It's great on paper, but we find nonprofits mostly benefit the people running them and very little of the money actually goes to the actions the nonprofits claim to be undertaking. The science can be sound, and their intentions can be honorable, but that doesn't mean that what they want to do is financially viable, especially if the principles are paying themselves very high salaries, which is typically what happens with nonprofits. I know a couple of multi-millionaires who been running struggling nonprofits for years. It's funny how the people running the nonprofit have done phenomenally well but their nonprofits hardly do anything, modern day snake oil salesmen.
I would think that an organization trying to save the planet would want to be make sure everything they do is transparent and above board.
It boils down to your opinion on https://farawayproject.org/, under which they operate. I thought faraway is a great idea, but maybe it's just another clever tax loophole.
18 comments
[ 159 ms ] story [ 539 ms ] threadThis moral question is a red herring.
It's more that those against geoengineering have unrealistic expectations that things can go 'back to the way they were' - some idealized past where the balance of nature is achieved and everything stays static. A fiction created by popular media.
The world hasn't ever been static. With or without humans.
We need a new basic narrative to get out of this way of thinking. It's really that intrinsic. We see the idealized past in Tolkien's work, in Avatar, in Disney movies - they create an idea that the only solution forward is reverse entropy. This is a damaging idea because it removes agency from us humans and leaves it up to the gods in which we'll inevitably come up empty-handed.
EW was never field-tested in any significant capacity. We know nothing about the cost-effectiveness of it, because we hardly understand if it'll work at all.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207#20596492
I do wonder about the effects on aquatic ecosystems and migratory birds/other animals that use the beaches to nest.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/beach-vacations/...
I suppose in some sense you could consider it a trolley problem - do we kill one to save millions - but it seems very intensive?
I think this is a case where the trolley problem is easily morally solved; it's morally urgent to slow pace of coral reef death and other marine life death, and since it is already our actions causing this I think it is quite morally right to take any action that reduces the suffering of life overall.
Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20407355
I realize that not all states require nonprofits to conduct audits but this seems like a wonderful area to scam people. "Buy this $300 necklace and save the planet"
It's great on paper, but we find nonprofits mostly benefit the people running them and very little of the money actually goes to the actions the nonprofits claim to be undertaking. The science can be sound, and their intentions can be honorable, but that doesn't mean that what they want to do is financially viable, especially if the principles are paying themselves very high salaries, which is typically what happens with nonprofits. I know a couple of multi-millionaires who been running struggling nonprofits for years. It's funny how the people running the nonprofit have done phenomenally well but their nonprofits hardly do anything, modern day snake oil salesmen.
I would think that an organization trying to save the planet would want to be make sure everything they do is transparent and above board.