This is a great article. I'm glad to see this sentiment is finally starting to gain traction:
>She fears that the rising dangers of climate change will put growing pressure on nations and other actors to move forward with solar geoengineering, even if no one has done the necessary research to reduce scientific uncertainty and sort out the technical challenges.
>“We don’t think the alternative is decisions not happening at all,” she says. “We think the alternative is decisions being made in a panic or on lack of evidence.”
Unfortunately the article ends on that point and we don't get the rebuttal of the lofty idyllic academics or fearful policymakers.
Yep. Someone is surely going to do something at some point if we continue on this course. Hand-wringing from relative safety of above-sea level places at high latitude is cheap.
Also it does annoy me when people say "well it went badly wrong in the Matrix/Snowpiercer/etc., therefore we should not even talk about it, as it is clearly stupid. It may be stupid, or it may not be, but that should be determined on its own (de)merits, not because fiction used the idea as a plot device.
Setting out on a major geo engineering project is a folly or a cynical PR greenwash - maybe both. We already have a highly viable path to transition to Renewable power while optimizing all sorts of sustainability loops.
I'd like to see more open discussion of blockading and bombing uncooperative country's fossil fuel supply chains once decarbonization is in full swing.
And get wide global agreement that anyone geoengineering when they are still pumping oil is effectively declaring war on other countries and so attacks on their pipelines or ports are considered a counter strike.
> like to see more open discussion of blockading and bombing uncooperative country's fossil fuel supply chains
One, we're doing a pretty good job of that without any particular aim in mind. Two, this currently constitutes a war crime and will always constitute collective punishment.
In 2020 we eliminated sulfur dioxides from international shipping fuels to reduce pollution. We inadvertently did a little geoengineering project, albeit in the wrong direction. Pretty solid evidence that this sulfur removal had direct warming effects - https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3 - For anyone needing a large scale demonstration of the climate-changing power of sulfur, this was it.
So the sulfur schemes are viable, in that they will block radiation and cool the planet. God knows what else it'll do - but the fact that sulfur works at scale and it's easiest option to try indicates that someone may attempt it before we understand.
I know it's a work of fiction, but check out Neal Stephenson's "Termination Shock". That's basically the plot.
This sort of fake, irrational, megolomaniack shit has zero possibility of getting approved and implimented.
The low level sleezy style of hype pumping an idiot idea into billions is predictable, but in this case will fail as they have zero real science ,data, or the vaugest possible plan for implimentation......oh wait, I get it, this is a gambit to portray our situation as hopeless and rather than continuing with mass mega conversion to solar, we keep burning oil and then oh ya baby, use even MORE oil to fix it.
fuck.OFF. the petro dollar is dead and nothing will save it.
8 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 10.1 ms ] thread>She fears that the rising dangers of climate change will put growing pressure on nations and other actors to move forward with solar geoengineering, even if no one has done the necessary research to reduce scientific uncertainty and sort out the technical challenges.
>“We don’t think the alternative is decisions not happening at all,” she says. “We think the alternative is decisions being made in a panic or on lack of evidence.”
Unfortunately the article ends on that point and we don't get the rebuttal of the lofty idyllic academics or fearful policymakers.
Also it does annoy me when people say "well it went badly wrong in the Matrix/Snowpiercer/etc., therefore we should not even talk about it, as it is clearly stupid. It may be stupid, or it may not be, but that should be determined on its own (de)merits, not because fiction used the idea as a plot device.
And get wide global agreement that anyone geoengineering when they are still pumping oil is effectively declaring war on other countries and so attacks on their pipelines or ports are considered a counter strike.
One, we're doing a pretty good job of that without any particular aim in mind. Two, this currently constitutes a war crime and will always constitute collective punishment.
So the sulfur schemes are viable, in that they will block radiation and cool the planet. God knows what else it'll do - but the fact that sulfur works at scale and it's easiest option to try indicates that someone may attempt it before we understand.
I know it's a work of fiction, but check out Neal Stephenson's "Termination Shock". That's basically the plot.