7 ms·

oh, yes. Anything but stopping the extraction, trade or combustion of fossil fuels. Even if the workarounds have unforeseen consequences.

by usern20260720 17d ago

inigyou 17d ago
It's too late for that. We had to do it 20 years ago. Plus, you and I have no power over fossil fuel extraction, but we do have the individual ability to put sulphur in the upper atmosphere (with effort). Game theory rules everything.
hiddencost 17d ago
Even if we hit carbon neutral tomorrow it's too late.
the__alchemist 17d ago
Sulfur or similar may be more politically viable due to the tradgedy-of-the-commons. They can be enacted without as much consensus, maybe.
- A_D_E_P_T 17d ago
  In Neal Stephenson's novel Termination Shock it was enacted with zero consensus. I think that there are private bodies working on it right now, too.
  - pfdietz 17d ago
    I could see countries drastically affected by heat doing it. If they experience mass death, or even in the case of island countries complete elimination, what threat would make them stop?
oytis 17d ago
Any solution relying on collective sacrifice is unrealistic IMO. I believe in geoingineering because it's better compatible with how economy works. Either that or we discover a magic abundant non-polluting energy source, but I woldn't rely on that
- ahartmetz 17d ago
  We're already doing it and making progress. It's not instant and we still have delayed consequences to deal with, so short-term fixes also make sense.
  - oytis 17d ago
    You can use different metrics for progress, but it looks like world oil consumption has nearly doubled since 2000
- jcynix 17d ago
  Oh, yes, geoengineering, because nothing can go wrong … Please read the classic book by Edward Tenner: Why Things Bite Back. Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences, 1996 (oldie but goldie and must read for people who think technical solutions have no unintended (and irrevocable) consequences Mike eucalyptus trees in California, or the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad in Australia, among others.
  - oytis 17d ago
    A lot can go wrong, but a long is going wrong already. I think putting effort in trying to do it as safely as possible is more productive than trying to convince nations to become poorer voluntary. Alternative energy is important too, but so far it rather complements than replaces fossil fuel.
    - AnimalMuppet 17d ago
      But this is one of the classic blunders! "Things are going wrong, so we have to do something! This is something, so we have to do it!" Well, no, we have to do something that will help. Doing something that makes things worse isn't the answer, and the worse things are, the less we can afford to do so. "This might help, but also might really mess things up" is not the answer - not in politics, not in economics, and not in climate change. But I agree with one part of your post. Persuading nations to become poorer voluntarily is not a viable strategy.
dpc050505 17d ago
How do you do that without completely messing up the supply chains that keep us fed and alive for the next 6 months? The wealthiest people (who also happen to be ones that are a bit more sheltered from the climatic crisis) will still be able to afford food. Billions of poor people would just starve without petrochemical fertilizers and the diesel required for industrial farming and transportation of food. We could've had a smooth transition a few decades ago. Now it's super late and the choice is short term catastrophe vs long term catastrophe. Do you know how much fossil fuels it takes to build and maintain a wind farm or an electric truck? How much petroleum coke is burnt making the cement to build the towers that make walkable cities possible? The alternative to fossil fuels and the climate crisis is basically an incredibly deadly and uncomfortable step out of the industrialized world. No one is making that decision. It's a fancy trolley problem where the amount of people on the tracks has 10 figures on both sides and blurry timelines. Just the increase of gas prices due to the iran war is going to cause some fucked up harvests in africa, south america and asia. The poorest farmers aren't able to afford fertilizers. I have a coworker who has ties in Guinea-bissau. The farmers there are basically getting spitroasted by the combination of climate changed caused droughts messing up their cash crops followed by increased oil prices due to wars they have nothing to do with increasing the price of their agricultural inputs. Your simplistic view on fossil fuels will not keep them alive long enough to see the even worst effects of climate change that are coming. If it was easy to stop emitting greenhouse gases we would've managed to do it 25+ years ago.
- __d 17d ago
  > If it was easy to stop emitting greenhouse gases we would've managed to do it 25+ years ago. Also, if it weren’t so profitable.
kmeisthax 17d ago
Let's say a magical enviro-fascist cabal of superhumans appears tomorrow and are somehow able to completely dismantle and ban all sources of energy that emit large amounts of CO2 while also somehow providing replacement quantities of non-emitting alternatives (e.g. wind, solar, and nuclear). In this environment we will still need to geoengineer the planet for as long as the carbon we have already burned remains in the atmosphere. We are already way outside the pre-industrial baseline. And carbon capture is very energy-intensive, so no matter how much of our solar energy abundance we put into it, we are going to be geoengineering for decades.
- __d 17d ago
  If it’s only decades, we’ve been very, very lucky.

oh, yes. Anything but stopping the extraction, trade or combustion of fossil fuels. Even if the workarounds have unforeseen consequences.

inigyou 17d ago

It's too late for that. We had to do it 20 years ago. Plus, you and I have no power over fossil fuel extraction, but we do have the individual ability to put sulphur in the upper atmosphere (with effort). Game theory rules everything.

hiddencost 17d ago

Even if we hit carbon neutral tomorrow it's too late.

the__alchemist 17d ago

Sulfur or similar may be more politically viable due to the tradgedy-of-the-commons. They can be enacted without as much consensus, maybe.

A_D_E_P_T 17d ago
In Neal Stephenson's novel Termination Shock it was enacted with zero consensus. I think that there are private bodies working on it right now, too.
- pfdietz 17d ago
  I could see countries drastically affected by heat doing it. If they experience mass death, or even in the case of island countries complete elimination, what threat would make them stop?

oytis 17d ago

Any solution relying on collective sacrifice is unrealistic IMO. I believe in geoingineering because it's better compatible with how economy works. Either that or we discover a magic abundant non-polluting energy source, but I woldn't rely on that

ahartmetz 17d ago
We're already doing it and making progress. It's not instant and we still have delayed consequences to deal with, so short-term fixes also make sense.
- oytis 17d ago
  You can use different metrics for progress, but it looks like world oil consumption has nearly doubled since 2000
jcynix 17d ago
Oh, yes, geoengineering, because nothing can go wrong … Please read the classic book by Edward Tenner: Why Things Bite Back. Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences, 1996 (oldie but goldie and must read for people who think technical solutions have no unintended (and irrevocable) consequences Mike eucalyptus trees in California, or the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad in Australia, among others.
- oytis 17d ago
  A lot can go wrong, but a long is going wrong already. I think putting effort in trying to do it as safely as possible is more productive than trying to convince nations to become poorer voluntary. Alternative energy is important too, but so far it rather complements than replaces fossil fuel.
  - AnimalMuppet 17d ago
    But this is one of the classic blunders! "Things are going wrong, so we have to do something! This is something, so we have to do it!" Well, no, we have to do something that will help. Doing something that makes things worse isn't the answer, and the worse things are, the less we can afford to do so. "This might help, but also might really mess things up" is not the answer - not in politics, not in economics, and not in climate change. But I agree with one part of your post. Persuading nations to become poorer voluntarily is not a viable strategy.

dpc050505 17d ago

How do you do that without completely messing up the supply chains that keep us fed and alive for the next 6 months? The wealthiest people (who also happen to be ones that are a bit more sheltered from the climatic crisis) will still be able to afford food. Billions of poor people would just starve without petrochemical fertilizers and the diesel required for industrial farming and transportation of food. We could've had a smooth transition a few decades ago. Now it's super late and the choice is short term catastrophe vs long term catastrophe. Do you know how much fossil fuels it takes to build and maintain a wind farm or an electric truck? How much petroleum coke is burnt making the cement to build the towers that make walkable cities possible? The alternative to fossil fuels and the climate crisis is basically an incredibly deadly and uncomfortable step out of the industrialized world. No one is making that decision. It's a fancy trolley problem where the amount of people on the tracks has 10 figures on both sides and blurry timelines. Just the increase of gas prices due to the iran war is going to cause some fucked up harvests in africa, south america and asia. The poorest farmers aren't able to afford fertilizers. I have a coworker who has ties in Guinea-bissau. The farmers there are basically getting spitroasted by the combination of climate changed caused droughts messing up their cash crops followed by increased oil prices due to wars they have nothing to do with increasing the price of their agricultural inputs. Your simplistic view on fossil fuels will not keep them alive long enough to see the even worst effects of climate change that are coming. If it was easy to stop emitting greenhouse gases we would've managed to do it 25+ years ago.

__d 17d ago
> If it was easy to stop emitting greenhouse gases we would've managed to do it 25+ years ago. Also, if it weren’t so profitable.

kmeisthax 17d ago

Let's say a magical enviro-fascist cabal of superhumans appears tomorrow and are somehow able to completely dismantle and ban all sources of energy that emit large amounts of CO2 while also somehow providing replacement quantities of non-emitting alternatives (e.g. wind, solar, and nuclear). In this environment we will still need to geoengineer the planet for as long as the carbon we have already burned remains in the atmosphere. We are already way outside the pre-industrial baseline. And carbon capture is very energy-intensive, so no matter how much of our solar energy abundance we put into it, we are going to be geoengineering for decades.

__d 17d ago
If it’s only decades, we’ve been very, very lucky.