David Keith has an audacious plan to slow down global warming. Critics say it poses grave risks.

In addition to actual reporting, the NYT creates newslike ads for the fossil fuels industry. This results in disproportionate attention on high-risk approaches that involve anything other than phasing out fossil fuel use.

  • @rtxnEnglish
    4•1 month ago

    Tell me, does it fail catastrophically?

    • @[email protected]OPM
      24•1 month ago

      There are a bunch of issues:

      • It requires maintaining technical infrastructure for longer than civilizations last
      • It changes the pole-to-equator temperature gradient, altering weather patterns worldwide
      • It changes rainfall distribution in ways that we’re not clear on yet, potentially risking agriculture
      • If we keep on burning fossil fuels but limiting temperature increase with a scheme like this, we still end up with ocean acidification, killing off pretty much everything with hard body parts in the oceans
      • @[email protected]
        10•1 month ago

        Never in the history of humanity did any experiment cause unintended harm, ever. Except that one time. Oh and all the other times, fair. But… Well yes, there were those toads. And the camels. But that’s it! And … Well, all the rabbits as well. Ah screw that, I’m going home.

    • @[email protected]
      1•1 month ago

      If you let a sabretooth tiger loose into a playground full of unsuspecting children in order to catch the rats that are eating all the shrubs, does it fail catastrophically? Or was it just catastrophic to begin with?

      In the struggle against human-caused climate change, this is a completely new avenue for humans to change the climate.