The article accuses greentech and carbon-credits of genocide: "While guaranteeing high returns, this deception is tantamount to the genocide of the hundreds of millions of people who will perish from the effects of climate change within the next century because things are that bad."
That's pretty harsh. But, if you think "things are that bad," let's also consider the moral culpability of people trying to stop the scientific study of geoengineering:
https://www.solargeoeng.org/
Scientifically, stratospheric aerosol injection works: IPCC gives "high agreement that it could limit warming to below 1.5°C" with a material cost of less than $10B per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_geoengineering
But, as we all know, it is intellectually unacceptable to be an advocate for geoengineering. For some reason, "Thou shalt not believe in a technological solution to global warming." Instead, billions of people need to voluntarily (or not) dramatically reduce their lifestyle. I really don't get it. Any insights?
From my understanding, there's two major issues with geoengineering.
1. You have to keep doing it forever, and likely accelerate the rate at which you do. If rapid decarbonization doesn't happen in tandem, you'll need to be adding more and more aerosols over time. And the second you stop, you get a sudden whiplash climate change event that has a hundred years of warming in one. The risk of that catastrophe isn't worthwhile to many.
2. Most of the compounds that are cheap and effective are both ozone depleters and cause acid rain. The one studied most is Sulfur Dioxide, which would cause ocean acidification after many years of sustained use.
IMO, it's a fundamentally bad idea because it's using one form of pollution to fix the problem created by another. The second and third order effects could be unforeseen and catastrophic.
Just to break these separate arguments up into pieces:
1. "You have to keep doing it forever"
2. "[Stopping] creates a sudden whiplash climate change event"
3. Geoengineering will deplete the ozone
4. Geoengineering causes acid raid
5. Geoengineering causes ocean acidification
6. Fundamentally bad: "one form of pollution to fix the problem created by another"
7. "second and third order effects could be unforeseen and catastrophic"
8. If we use geoengineering, then people won't decarbonize (I'm assuming this is also a concern).
1. We do lots of things forever, like collecting taxes or taking out the trash. So I don't understand that issue. 2. Why would we stop, if it is so important? 3. Open to ozone depletion as a bigger problem, but just by tonnage, it should be 1/3 of the effect described here: https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gcp/studentpapers/1996/atmos... 4. According to this article, acid rain from geoengineering would be a small fraction of the effect of current industrial pollution: https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD011918 5. Ocean acidification is a real concern. But I suspect 2 degrees of warming will much more dangerous to ocean ecosystems. 6. I don't understand the fundamentally bad argument. Neither CO2 nor SO2 are bad chemicals. Our goal should be to moderate the climate; maybe we need one chemical to balance the other. 7. This is my personal opinion, but I think the second and third order effects need to be studied scientifically. The second and third order effects of degrowth are also real. 8. I think a move to geoengineering would be politically advantageous for decarbonization policy. No one wants geoengineering. But if we need it, we need it—and if we might need it, we should study it carefully, scientifically.
At one point he talks about the possibility of unilateral geoengineering, and he mentions the head of the Bangladesh Institute of Strategic Studies...
- - - -
FWIW I figure that a technological "magic bullet" might save our bacon, and it's prudent to explore the options. (Personally I thought the olivine weathering seemed promising but I don't know if anything came of it, at least so far.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_weathering
But I'm convinced by Václav Smil (among others) that the real solution will have to involve just not pulling up so much carbon from underground and putting it in the atmosphere.
Yeah, I agree with that. Unfortunately, it seems to me that we're going to overshoot on climate and it's going to be bad: mass migrations, mass starvation, war...
I feel like there's a narrow window here to choose our future, but that's likely an illusion or conceit.
For myself, I'm leaning toward becoming some sort of prepper, not politically nor ideologically, but as a kind of Pascal's Wager with the possibility of future chaos.
& that’s why I’m really surprised why people don’t take geoengineering more seriously. Like, if the climate naturally changed, we’d need to do it also. So why not now?
Reduce their GHG emissions, not their "lifestyle".
It's getting very boring listening to people confuse the two of those things.
Electric cars and heating are better. Electricity from renewables is better. Even if you totally ignore the GHG angle. Once you add that it's a no regret, no brainer decision, not a sacrifice.
Right! And those things will happen naturally, because it is in people’s best interest. Cars are about 1/5 of US emissions. Switching to electric will reduce that by 1/3.
That's pretty harsh. But, if you think "things are that bad," let's also consider the moral culpability of people trying to stop the scientific study of geoengineering: https://www.solargeoeng.org/
Scientifically, stratospheric aerosol injection works: IPCC gives "high agreement that it could limit warming to below 1.5°C" with a material cost of less than $10B per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_geoengineering
But, as we all know, it is intellectually unacceptable to be an advocate for geoengineering. For some reason, "Thou shalt not believe in a technological solution to global warming." Instead, billions of people need to voluntarily (or not) dramatically reduce their lifestyle. I really don't get it. Any insights?