I do understand the idea that "quick and dirty" fixes to climate problems create moral hazard, and that pursuing risky solutions to problems can sometimes create even bigger problems further down the road. I'm not unsympathetic.
However, there's a plausible case that we already face near-unstoppable climate change even if we can radically reduce carbon emissions. We might not be able to have "just" 1.5 or 2 degrees of warming, because at 2 degrees warmer we see melting permafrost and escaping methane. We really do need to know exactly what tools we have available if we find that we need to force the Earth's temperature back to 20th century levels in short order. Delaying investigation of geoengineering just means that any decision to use the technology will need to be taken more quickly, with less available data, than would otherwise be the case.
1 comment
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 10.2 ms ] threadHowever, there's a plausible case that we already face near-unstoppable climate change even if we can radically reduce carbon emissions. We might not be able to have "just" 1.5 or 2 degrees of warming, because at 2 degrees warmer we see melting permafrost and escaping methane. We really do need to know exactly what tools we have available if we find that we need to force the Earth's temperature back to 20th century levels in short order. Delaying investigation of geoengineering just means that any decision to use the technology will need to be taken more quickly, with less available data, than would otherwise be the case.