[duahncjak]

I think solutions to climate change that require global coordination are doomed to failure. When things start getting rough it’s going to be some entity independently pursuing a geoengineering solution, with whatever risk that entails. It’s not the best approach, but it’s something that someone can impose on the whole world without conquering them and shutting down their coal plans.

[guelo]

The United Nation was effective in the mid 20th century at global coordination, but nationalist and anti-government attacks on it have rendered it ineffective. But it can be restored, climate change is global problem we need global coordination.

[0xffff2]

I'm afraid you're right, but I'm also afraid that no one has the necessary combination of money, technological skill and military might to undertake that kind of geoengineering unilaterally.

[duahncjak]

This paper estimates the cost at ~$2.25B/year, and notes that more than 50 countries have military budgets exceeding $3B: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d#...

They point out the plan assumes you can launch planes from a few different points around the globe. You don’t need global agreement, but at least access to some foreign airports.

[chillacy]

The scary part is how to resolve disputes over geoengineering. What if China decides to make the Gobi desert farmland but downwind it makes California the new Sahara desert?

[0xffff2]

>This paper estimates the cost at ~$2.25B/year, and notes that more than 50 countries have military budgets exceeding $3B

An utterly meaningless comparison. None of those countries are going to simply stop spending all of their money on their military overnight.