[jaggs]

Yet another stupid attempt to push this flawed proposal. There are so many things wrong with the idea it's almost ludicrous. For one thing, who gets the right to determine how this goes planetwide?

For example, who will guarantee that releasing sulphuric acid into the sky won't trash the monsoon and kill billions of people? The number of unintended consequences we could suffer as a result of this moronic idea boggles the mind.

[willis936]

Find the societies most affected by Global Warming the soonest, between the tropics is the safest bet. Pick the one with the largest GDP because they have the largest ability to geoengineer.

Do you think that a political leader from there will ask global permission before doing this? Do you think a political leader from there could make any other decision when the society is facing an existential threat?

It's naïveté. This needs to be researched much more than it has been because the illusion of choice will be gone sooner than you think.

[parkingrift]

If you think it’s ludicrous go ahead and show us the realistic path to avoiding the known and even more catastrophic outcomes of climate change. Not some comically pie in the sky eco idealism. A path that has a chance of actually happening in the real world. The real world where Russia thinks global warming will be good for them.

We’re a decade or more away from peak emissions with best efforts, and that date will be pushed deeper into the future if there is a global recession.

Stratospheric aerosol injection needs more research as it is one of the only viable ways we have to stave off global catastrophe.

[jaggs]

The reality is there is NO single solution that will get us out of this hole. The first thing we need to do is drastically cut our emissions every single way we can, as fast as we can. This is not comic pie in the sky, it's realism.

Squirting acid into the sky is pie in the sky. Nobody knows if or how this might go, because it's impossible to test at less than planetary scale. And again, we come back to the problem. Why does one country, mad person or whatever have the right to decide to spray this toxin across a whole planet?

This is exactly the same faulty thinking about tech solutions that have stalled progress so far, and led to billions wasted on carbon capture tech.

Stop emitting CO2. If we were prepared to reduce our comfort and convenience, stop looking for constant 'growth' and start to plan for a sustainable future, we could turn things around really quickly. But we keep kicking the can down the road, and electing politicians who pay lip service to tackling the crisis.

You know how we know we could do this? Because our pandemic response was unparalleled and comprehensive by and large. And it reduced emissions as a by product by 17% or so.

Geoengineering is just another egotistical pipedream from the tech brigade.

[parkingrift]

This response is absurd idealism at its best.

Just cut emissions, man, it’s that easy! How many bong rips before you typed that out?

> The first thing we need to do is drastically cut our emissions every single way we can, as fast as we can. This is not comic pie in the sky, it's realism.

These two sentences. Round one. Fight!

We can’t even agree to do this in the United States. Russia doesn’t agree that it’s necessary to do this at all. To say you’re handwaving away the challenges here is the understatement of all time.

[jaggs]

Ad hominens are always a delight, don't you think?

The answer to your question is - I never said it would be easy. That's fairly obvious. We cut emissions during the pandemic on a global scale. We survived. Possibly with the right social and political will we could do it again?

I don't have any answers to this, I'm just suggesting that we try the obvious before reaching for the crazy stuff.

No matter what happens, whether we squirt sulphur into the sky or not, we're going to have to reduce emissions. We can't keep pretending it doesn't matter.

[beachy]

Yep. Why even consider geoengineering while we're still pouring fucking CO2 into the air? If we can't stop increasing the damage, we don't deserve to continue as a species.

[true_religion]

> If we can't stop increasing the damage, we don't deserve to continue as a species.

This sounds like back in the 90s, when abstinence only advocates said if you can’t stop having sex then you deserve to die of AIDS, so we should stop wasting money on cures and better treatments.

People deserve a chance to live, no matter what their lifestyle.

[beachy]

> People deserve a chance to live, no matter what their lifestyle.

I disagree, though I'm aware it's perhaps an unusual position to take and I would selfishly fight tooth and nail if my family were threatened.

There will never be a human invention as wonderful as the natural world that we are vigorously destroying. To me, we don't deserve to be here if we continue to destroy it. We are not special, just one species amongst millions.

[jaggs]

You are talking as though there are no alternatives. Anyway, we're probably going round in circles by this time, so I'll bow out. It'll be what it'll be. :)

[jaggs]

Heh, that's going to be great for photosynthesis, methinks.

[acc_297]

theres some study which found it might make the sky turn a milky white which seems grim but apparently sunsets would look incredible