5 ms·

We need to get serious about geo-engineering of some form or another. We have seen time and time again that we simply do not have the willpower to reduce climat

We need to get serious about geo-engineering of some form or another. We have seen time and time again that we simply do not have the willpower to reduce climate change. So I'm becoming convinced that the only short- and medium-term solution is geoengineering to stop global warming.

cachius 1mo ago
Just posted the idea for a win-win reuse of desalination waste water in the arctic depths in a sibling comment! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49283840#49286264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49283840#49286264
christkv 1mo ago
There is no way geoengineering could go wrong right and make things worse. We really understand complex systems right? No way we would be like toddlers messing with powers we barely understand.
- cachius 1mo ago
  > geoengineering could go wrong Sure. If one path leads to certain doom and the other into the unknown, which one do you choose?
  - Lord-Jobo 1mo ago
    The third path that is constantly being pushed against by rubes, dishonest hacks, and large moneyed interests. And intentionally left out of conversations like this by people addicted to simplistic thinking and binary fallacies
    - netsharc 1mo ago
      What's the 3rd path, Commander Vague?
      - Lord-Jobo 1mo ago
        Taking it fucking seriously as a nation and implementing any of the possible externality capture models in earnest. That means a rapidly scaling(5 year) decline in oil subsidizes to zero, a rapidly scaling ban on fossil fuel power (10 year) and a rapidly scaling (10 years) deployment of a carbon tax credit system, and at least a 100x government research grants on carbon capture technology. All of the above, in sufficient numbers, would achieve surefire results without taking absurd risks and massive gambles. All of it, and many other things, have been researched and talked about to death for years, rigor and scrutiny that geo engineering has not. They haven’t been implemented because vested interests have billions of dollars to keep those changes from happening, and the public has not put their ballots behind it, leading to very unserious short term thinkers in positions of power. Change that, and we could easily afford to do this, we have the money and lack the willpower.
        ffsm8 1mo ago
        Frankly, I would've agreed with your opinion... Maybe 20-30 years ago? I think it's clear that nothing will be done - and initiatives that end at a national level are meaningless from a climate perspective. You should definitely still try to get your locality to do them, because they increase your quality of life by reducing local pollution... It climate change relevant? No. 15-20 years ago I would've said we need a more global approach to this, actual binding agreements - enforced globally through a body that has the ability to force the nations to actually adhere to them. But now, in the last 5-10 years I've most certainly lost any kind of hope that such a initiate would not end being leveraged by someone like trump to sabotage others. Honestly, I currently consider any climate change oriented political decisions to be irrelevant at best. It's gonna happen, so if you do something - do it for your local environment. If you try to signal with global warming I am forced to see you as at best a hopelessly naive person, as I was 30 years ago
        wookmaster 1mo ago
        I think we're well beyond proving humanity can't shed greed to the point it hinders our ability to survive long term.
antisthenes 1mo ago
> geoengineering to stop global warming Global warming is geoengineering. And any geoengineering out of it will need to eclipse the current geoengineering in size, energy and effort.
_aavaa_ 1mo ago
Burning fossil fuels is geo-engineering. The things we need to get serious about are the easy to do thing (compared the sci-fi coded versions of geoengineering) we already know how to do, but are dragging our feet on: electrification, renewables, better insolation, more public transit, reducing red meat consumption.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 1mo ago
  Is public transit even that important with ev? I don't want to discourage public transit, I am just less hopeful in changing the entire culture of some countries which are car centric
  - Gud 1mo ago
    Yes, producing EVs require massive amounts of resources. Fixing public transportation in many cities is unbelievable low hanging fruit. I live in Zürich and I’ve yet visited another city with the same level of public transport(Stockholm, maybe). And I travel 300+ days a year for work. London has pretty solid public transport, just need to improve its bus game. I understand what you are saying. But it was the car lobbies who changed the culture.
    - defrost 1mo ago
      > But it was the car lobbies who changed the culture. A box on wheels is a box on wheels; fueled by hydrogen or rolling coal really should make little to difference to car manufacturers. Following the 1970s UN acknowledgements of CO2 increases and projected issues it was really the fossil fuel funded lobbies that changed the culture, aggressively promoting bigger and bigger cars, more highways, and actively working against cities, counties and states that started looking into better public transport. eg: (2018) How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub... Americans for Prosperity (founded 2004) is just one of the many Koch affiliated advocacy groups / think-tanks of the past fifty years created to increase consumption (of Koch products) and decrease regulation (of Koch interests) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity Being in the trans national energy and resource extraction game also meant that their fingers got into the workings of a number of countries, not just Canada and the USofA alone.

cachius 1mo ago

Just posted the idea for a win-win reuse of desalination waste water in the arctic depths in a sibling comment! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49283840#49286264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49283840#49286264

christkv 1mo ago

There is no way geoengineering could go wrong right and make things worse. We really understand complex systems right? No way we would be like toddlers messing with powers we barely understand.

cachius 1mo ago
> geoengineering could go wrong Sure. If one path leads to certain doom and the other into the unknown, which one do you choose?
- Lord-Jobo 1mo ago
  The third path that is constantly being pushed against by rubes, dishonest hacks, and large moneyed interests. And intentionally left out of conversations like this by people addicted to simplistic thinking and binary fallacies
  - netsharc 1mo ago
    What's the 3rd path, Commander Vague?
    - Lord-Jobo 1mo ago
      Taking it fucking seriously as a nation and implementing any of the possible externality capture models in earnest. That means a rapidly scaling(5 year) decline in oil subsidizes to zero, a rapidly scaling ban on fossil fuel power (10 year) and a rapidly scaling (10 years) deployment of a carbon tax credit system, and at least a 100x government research grants on carbon capture technology. All of the above, in sufficient numbers, would achieve surefire results without taking absurd risks and massive gambles. All of it, and many other things, have been researched and talked about to death for years, rigor and scrutiny that geo engineering has not. They haven’t been implemented because vested interests have billions of dollars to keep those changes from happening, and the public has not put their ballots behind it, leading to very unserious short term thinkers in positions of power. Change that, and we could easily afford to do this, we have the money and lack the willpower.
      - ffsm8 1mo ago
        Frankly, I would've agreed with your opinion... Maybe 20-30 years ago? I think it's clear that nothing will be done - and initiatives that end at a national level are meaningless from a climate perspective. You should definitely still try to get your locality to do them, because they increase your quality of life by reducing local pollution... It climate change relevant? No. 15-20 years ago I would've said we need a more global approach to this, actual binding agreements - enforced globally through a body that has the ability to force the nations to actually adhere to them. But now, in the last 5-10 years I've most certainly lost any kind of hope that such a initiate would not end being leveraged by someone like trump to sabotage others. Honestly, I currently consider any climate change oriented political decisions to be irrelevant at best. It's gonna happen, so if you do something - do it for your local environment. If you try to signal with global warming I am forced to see you as at best a hopelessly naive person, as I was 30 years ago
      - wookmaster 1mo ago
        I think we're well beyond proving humanity can't shed greed to the point it hinders our ability to survive long term.

antisthenes 1mo ago

> geoengineering to stop global warming Global warming is geoengineering. And any geoengineering out of it will need to eclipse the current geoengineering in size, energy and effort.

_aavaa_ 1mo ago

Burning fossil fuels is geo-engineering. The things we need to get serious about are the easy to do thing (compared the sci-fi coded versions of geoengineering) we already know how to do, but are dragging our feet on: electrification, renewables, better insolation, more public transit, reducing red meat consumption.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 1mo ago
Is public transit even that important with ev? I don't want to discourage public transit, I am just less hopeful in changing the entire culture of some countries which are car centric
- Gud 1mo ago
  Yes, producing EVs require massive amounts of resources. Fixing public transportation in many cities is unbelievable low hanging fruit. I live in Zürich and I’ve yet visited another city with the same level of public transport(Stockholm, maybe). And I travel 300+ days a year for work. London has pretty solid public transport, just need to improve its bus game. I understand what you are saying. But it was the car lobbies who changed the culture.
  - defrost 1mo ago
    > But it was the car lobbies who changed the culture. A box on wheels is a box on wheels; fueled by hydrogen or rolling coal really should make little to difference to car manufacturers. Following the 1970s UN acknowledgements of CO2 increases and projected issues it was really the fossil fuel funded lobbies that changed the culture, aggressively promoting bigger and bigger cars, more highways, and actively working against cities, counties and states that started looking into better public transport. eg: (2018) How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub... Americans for Prosperity (founded 2004) is just one of the many Koch affiliated advocacy groups / think-tanks of the past fifty years created to increase consumption (of Koch products) and decrease regulation (of Koch interests) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity Being in the trans national energy and resource extraction game also meant that their fingers got into the workings of a number of countries, not just Canada and the USofA alone.