There is a whole lot that we can do. A plant caused the last ice age[1]. If we could genetically engineer that plant to grow on the ocean, it would sequester an incredible amount of CO2.
Most of the discussion of combatting climate change focuses on reducing atmospheric CO2, but there's an entire second category of approaches: Solar Radiation Management, some of which could be much faster and cheaper than reducing CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management
While reducing CO2 emissions via investment in renewables is still an important long term goal, if we're already heading towards a potentially catastrophic situation, it seems we should be investigating other forms of climate engineering more seriously?
I find some challenges in geo engineering:
- Problem shifting. Gaia is a very complex system, and geoengineering solutions can have unexpected effects
- We don't just have the problem of climate change to solve. Loss of biodiversity, acidification of the oceans, soil loss have to be taken into account.
- We have the jevons paradox. By finding a technical solution to the problem we can think that it is justifiable to continue polluting.
If we could slow down human activity, nature would begin to regenerate.
I think it is possible to slow down our development without any major problems for humanity, after all we have never lived in a period of such prosperity. It would be a matter of maintaining our level of wealth (or even lowering it a little) instead of aspiring to more.
Solutions created by us are usually fragile compared to natural systems that are anti-fragile.
While reducing CO2 emissions via investment in renewables is still an important long term goal, if we're already heading towards a potentially catastrophic situation, it seems we should be investigating other forms of climate engineering more seriously?