We neither have a plan to fix the existing ozone hole and nor do we have a way for preventing an asteroid collision (assuming we are lucky enough that the theoretical asteroid that hits us is one of the subset of asteroids we can actually track)
So no, neither of those problems are even remotely fixed. We’ve just done the bare minimum to check the “we’ve reacted to a crisis” box.
The problem is that we won't learn about it early enough for our current level of technology to do anything about it.
We'd need 2 fully-operational Starship launches or 4 SLS launches or 10 Delta IV Heavy launches with 25 years notice to redirect an asteroid like Bennu.
Now obviously 2 is better than 4 is better than 10. But the 25 years notice is a big problem. The momentum change you need to deliver the later it gets is so much larger.
> The problem is that we won't learn about it early enough for our current level of technology to do anything about it.
And this is exactly my point. We aren’t investing into inventing the technology to do this. Instead we just say “if we can detect a small asteroid early enough then we might be able to divert it” and then count that problem as solved. Even though Bennu is small, we still can’t see the vast majority of objects in the solar system and the advance notice we are talking about is impracticality long.
If this was a software engineering Jira ticket, it wouldn’t pass PR. And software developers aren’t even the most diligent of professionals compared engineers, doctors and scientists. But there’s no incentive for governments to sink money into a theoretical risk that impacts their “enemies” equally. And man do I hate how nations refer to other nations as “enemies” — but that’s a whole other argument.
And quite frankly, Bennu isn't even all that large. At worst, it would cause a regional catastrophe.
Imagine humanity being forced to react to an impending impact, say within a few years, from a newly detected 1km+ asteroid, never mind something like the colossal Chicxulub impactor.
Kind of tired of hearing this. Citing one initiative from 50 years ago is the definition of cherry picking, I'm sorry. The trend is that humans are incapable of long term global initiatives. I'm sure some game theory guy could prove it.
Strong disagree. When there is sufficient political will complex policies can and will be enacted. What is missing in climate action is not some psychological deficiency of our species, it’s lack of strong enough political consensus.
”We can’t do this” is both inaccurate and harmfull. I believe ”We are not currently fixing this” and ”there is a need for stronger political alignment” are the more accurate descriptions of the current malaise.
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.
In what way did we solve peak oil - by continuing to burn more every year? Climate scientists are going out of their minds.
Is PFAS rain that much better than acid rain? Rainwater is no longer safe to drink anywhere on Earth.
As for the whales, that's nice they got a reprive... But we're still extinctifying species at 100-1,000x the background rate.
And the people responsible for all of this are not strung up, nor even imprisoned. They're fucking around on mega-yachts and private planes (environmental atrocities in themselves).
Ozone is not fixed because I will still get extremely burnt in the sun here in Australia. Asteroids is not fixed because what happens when one super massive one is coming straight for us?
You do understand that even with a fully normal ozone layer, exposure to the sun can indeed cause burns during certain times of the year and especially in hot, tropical places? Are you expecting magic as a definition of fixed, or something that actually applies to reality?
Much of the climate change discourse on this site strays into the absurdly hysterical, but some of it veers even further into deep childish fantasy.
Are we not prepared though? Given other posts in this thread it seems to me that the effects are all calculated, expected and accounted for.
I mean if it's strong enough to fry off-grid electronics then it's a different matter entirely, but consumer electronics has some protections against that, right?
> I mean if it's strong enough to fry off-grid electronics then it's a different matter entirely
Last big storm in 2003 did damage grid level transformers. They also don’t just have those lying around and they’re quite expensive so it’s particularly devastating.
In the past consumer electronics came in metal boxes that were earthed, I sure those will be fine. But these days everything's made out of plastic and not grounded.
I'd like to see an actual investigation of the effects on (computing) hardware like processors and memory. Can these be damaged/interfered with irreversibly? Measurements and actionable information.