Do you know how easy geoengineering is to fuck up? And how global and severe the consequences are if we do? Plus, geoengineering is the kind of thing one country, or a billionaire moron on a private island, could do, and kill us all. I’m not saying there’s no place for geoengineering, only that the only reasonable place for it is after pretty much everything else has failed. We really don’t need or want The Year Without A Summer on repeat for decades.
Yes, if everything else fails. But continuing our current rate of consumption and assuming geoengineering will save us (which, let’s be real, is the intention of most geoengineering supporters) is insane. I don’t oppose developing the tech. I oppose using it until we’ve tried everything else.
Then you are simply not aware of the situation. We have “tried everything else.” It has basically failed already. There is no chance we can stop emissions in the timeframe desired. Geoengineering is already the only possibility.
We haven’t tried shit. We’ve continued to operate as if there are no limits to the biosphere. I’m very aware of the situation, which is the only reason I don’t reject geoengineering out of hand. Mao thought ecoengineering by killing all the sparrows would increase crop yields. It did not end well. I simply don’t want that on a global scale.
You’re missing the part about time. There is nothing that can be done in time to stop the problem. We’ve already tried everything that could actually work in a short amount of time. Geoengineering is the only thing left.
The rest of your argument is a strawman argument. There’s nothing to defend there.
People need to start accepting the necessity of geoengineering. Net zero by 2050 is a pure fantasy.
Do you know how easy geoengineering is to fuck up? And how global and severe the consequences are if we do? Plus, geoengineering is the kind of thing one country, or a billionaire moron on a private island, could do, and kill us all. I’m not saying there’s no place for geoengineering, only that the only reasonable place for it is after pretty much everything else has failed. We really don’t need or want The Year Without A Summer on repeat for decades.
And what are the consequences of failing to deal with climate change? At some point, the option becomes unavoidable.
Yes, if everything else fails. But continuing our current rate of consumption and assuming geoengineering will save us (which, let’s be real, is the intention of most geoengineering supporters) is insane. I don’t oppose developing the tech. I oppose using it until we’ve tried everything else.
Then you are simply not aware of the situation. We have “tried everything else.” It has basically failed already. There is no chance we can stop emissions in the timeframe desired. Geoengineering is already the only possibility.
We haven’t tried shit. We’ve continued to operate as if there are no limits to the biosphere. I’m very aware of the situation, which is the only reason I don’t reject geoengineering out of hand. Mao thought ecoengineering by killing all the sparrows would increase crop yields. It did not end well. I simply don’t want that on a global scale.
You’re missing the part about time. There is nothing that can be done in time to stop the problem. We’ve already tried everything that could actually work in a short amount of time. Geoengineering is the only thing left.
The rest of your argument is a strawman argument. There’s nothing to defend there.