[wing-_-nuts]

It's obvious to anyone who's taken 5 minutes to read up on climate change that cutting emissions is how we ultimately fix the problem. Unfortunately we're on track for 3+C of warming. Do you really believe we're going to stand by and watch that happen? I don't. Is geoengineering dangerous and short sighted? Yeah. Is it gonna happen? Also, yes. Should we research it to make it as safe as possible? Heck yeah.

[throwaway5959]

And what if geoengineering doesn’t work? Just waving our hands and saying technology will solve our problems in the future vs doing what we know works now (reducing consumption and cutting emissions) seems insane to me.

[pgalvin]

I think the point being made is that mankind is not acting fast enough - we are currently on track for facing a real risk of an irreversible domino effect of heating that we can’t stop. The IPCC reports discuss a range of possibilities - this isn’t guaranteed - but it’s possible.

In an ideal world, we would reach net zero in time to prevent that. This is the only long-term solution. But what if, in a decade or two, every projection says we won’t? Are we to chastise the rest of humanity, say “you could have prevented this the proper way!”, and let the dominos begin to fall?

Geoengineering, if the science is proven, should only act as a last resort to prevent such a domino effect. It would symbolise a profound failure of our species. But surely, if we realise we failed, this risky Hail Mary is better than not acting?

The risks of another massive human intervention into the atmosphere are obvious. Furthermore, geoengineering risks giving many nations an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels. Nobody has the right answers yet and everybody sensible agrees we need to do everything we can to reach net zero first.

But what if we don’t?

[throwaway5959]

That's exactly what I said, but longer.

[pgalvin]

You’re right :) I misread your comment as saying there was no scenario where we should resort to it, and I meant to raise the question of if there could be one day.

[philipkglass]

The flip side is: what if people aren't cutting emissions, or aren't cutting them fast enough? That's the actual situation we are in. Old social problems are even harder to solve than novel technological problems. If social change isn't happening fast enough to prevent the problem then I think we should try technological approaches. It's similar to how I would give Naloxone to someone overdosing on fentanyl even if the better solution would have been for them to not develop an opiate habit in the first place.

It is of course possible that both technological and social approaches will prove insufficient, and we'll go well beyond the "safe" level of global warming.

[silverquiet]

Try telling people that they shouldn't fly in planes (I've done it) and see how far that message gets you. The status quo wherein we geoengineer the climate ever hotter is indeed insane, but I suppose people are habituated to it. Solar radiation management is probably the only real chance to avoid drastic consequences at this point (and really only buys time; it's more of a half-assed fix).

[vasco]

We do geoengineering all the time. The UAE is seeding clouds since the 90s, China does it on a massive scale, the Saudis are ramping it up, etc. It seems like you're scared of something that is already happening anyway.

[wing-_-nuts]

Who's waving hands? As I explicitly stated, I am all for the drastic cuts needed to stop global warming. The thought that you can somehow divorce 'the economy' from the health of the environment is laughable. I'm just saying that we, as a species will probably resort to geoengineering and it would probably be a good idea to try and understand the dangers of it before some country decides to unilaterally start pumping sulfides in the atmosphere.