Stop emissions. There’s a lot of negative effects to society for doing that, but that’s the only real answer at this point. It also isn’t going to avoid decades of worsening conditions, but there isn’t a solution for that. All we can really do is stop continuing the damage we’re still doing, even after decades of knowing we were doing it.
Geoengineering will have its own issues that may make things worse in the long run, but the worst effect will be it leveraged as a reason to continue business as usual. That’s why I simply said we have to stop emissions. If we can’t do that, then there’s only one direction we can go (and are going, faster each year).
But as you said, stopping emissions won’t avoid decades of worsening conditions. I think actually stopping those decades of worsening conditions is more important than a hypothetical “moral hazard” concern.
Frankly, this argument always bothered me. When someone is sick you try to treat both the underlying cause and the symptoms. It would be morally bankrupt and downright ridiculous to say “let the patient suffer, it’s the only way he’ll learn.” Especially if the symptoms themselves could be fatal. And especially when the people suffering aren’t the ones who actually “need to learn.” When millions of people are starving to death in third-world nations or drowning when their overloaded refugee ships are turned away from wealthy ports, will you look them in the eye and tell them it’s necessary because otherwise oil company executives might not be as motivated to reduce emissions?
Using your metaphor the thing you’re proposing to “treat the symptoms” has side effects which worsen the disease thus causing more real damage and worsening symptoms.
The only reason you would willingly pursue that course of treatment is if a treatment for the initial disease was ongoing (in this metaphor it’s not, ghg emissions continue to increase dramatically) or if a patient was on palliative/EoLC.
You aren’t saving “millions of people from starving to death”, you’re gambling that it will hold a bit longer before tens-hundreds of millions of people starve to death, and the evidence that these “treat the symptoms” is minimal at best thus leading to both outcomes (millions soon, more later).
Using your metaphor the thing you’re proposing to “treat the symptoms” has side effects which worsen the disease thus causing more real damage and worsening symptoms.
What side effects, specifically? Some approaches to geoengineering may have negative side effects, but others don’t appear to. There’s no guarantee that an approach without side effects won’t be found.
You aren’t saving “millions of people from starving to death”
Yes, you are. Climate change would cause famine, ameliorating the effects of climate change would prevent that famine.
This whole comment is exactly the kind of argument that I’m objecting to. You’ve got some sort of a priori conviction that “no, geoengineering must make the situation work somehow” and therefore it’s not worth studying. If it’s not studied how can you possibly know?
It’s worth pointing out that the IPCC no longer uses the term “geoengineering” or “climate engineering” for the exact reason that we may be talking past each other here. They are problematicly vague and can describe things with very different characteristics. Are you talking about CDR, CCS, CCU, SRM, other vague “offset the impacts of climate change” (IE ocean liming/fertilization, glacier stabilization, etc.), or all of the above?
Some approaches to geoengineering may have negative side effects, but others don’t appear to.
Be specific. Which ones?
You have misread my previous comment.
Climate change would cause famine, ameliorating the effects of climate change would prevent that famine.You have misread
This statement is correct, but you are bringing it up against the point being made about how taking a “treating the symptoms” of climate change might improve things a bit in the short term, but leads to worse long term outcomes.
Nowhere did I say it’s not worth studying.
You’ve got some sort of a priori conviction that “no, geoengineering must make the situation worse somehow” and therefore it’s not worth studying. If it’s not studied how can you possibly know?
I have stated that the current status of said studies do not have sufficient evidence to merit the claims you are making. If you think otherwise please provide some evidence/papers/links etc. otherwise we’re in a Russell’s teapot situation here.
Unless your definition of “studying” is the argument that because the situation is bad enough it’s worth trying, at scale, whatever approach in the hope it improves things somewhat… Because that’s the argument that many use in order to sell dangerous and unethical grifts which seem promising and ‘harmless’. (I’m linking that article specifically because it’s “neutral journalism” at it’s worst and I’m curious at what you take away from it…)
No. You are the one who said “Using your metaphor the thing you’re proposing to “treat the symptoms” has side effects which worsen the disease thus causing more real damage and worsening symptoms.”
I then asked you to be specific. You tell me which ones have side effects that “worsen the disease.” You don’t get to Uno-reverse at me until you answer the question first.
Stop emissions. There’s a lot of negative effects to society for doing that, but that’s the only real answer at this point. It also isn’t going to avoid decades of worsening conditions, but there isn’t a solution for that. All we can really do is stop continuing the damage we’re still doing, even after decades of knowing we were doing it.
That’s a goal, not a plan.
You are too cute. Would you prefer this? … Regulate. It really is that simple.
Various geoengineering techniques are solutions for that. We should be studying those in greater detail.
Geoengineering will have its own issues that may make things worse in the long run, but the worst effect will be it leveraged as a reason to continue business as usual. That’s why I simply said we have to stop emissions. If we can’t do that, then there’s only one direction we can go (and are going, faster each year).
But as you said, stopping emissions won’t avoid decades of worsening conditions. I think actually stopping those decades of worsening conditions is more important than a hypothetical “moral hazard” concern.
Frankly, this argument always bothered me. When someone is sick you try to treat both the underlying cause and the symptoms. It would be morally bankrupt and downright ridiculous to say “let the patient suffer, it’s the only way he’ll learn.” Especially if the symptoms themselves could be fatal. And especially when the people suffering aren’t the ones who actually “need to learn.” When millions of people are starving to death in third-world nations or drowning when their overloaded refugee ships are turned away from wealthy ports, will you look them in the eye and tell them it’s necessary because otherwise oil company executives might not be as motivated to reduce emissions?
Because you don’t understand the argument…
Using your metaphor the thing you’re proposing to “treat the symptoms” has side effects which worsen the disease thus causing more real damage and worsening symptoms.
The only reason you would willingly pursue that course of treatment is if a treatment for the initial disease was ongoing (in this metaphor it’s not, ghg emissions continue to increase dramatically) or if a patient was on palliative/EoLC.
You aren’t saving “millions of people from starving to death”, you’re gambling that it will hold a bit longer before tens-hundreds of millions of people starve to death, and the evidence that these “treat the symptoms” is minimal at best thus leading to both outcomes (millions soon, more later).
What side effects, specifically? Some approaches to geoengineering may have negative side effects, but others don’t appear to. There’s no guarantee that an approach without side effects won’t be found.
Yes, you are. Climate change would cause famine, ameliorating the effects of climate change would prevent that famine.
This whole comment is exactly the kind of argument that I’m objecting to. You’ve got some sort of a priori conviction that “no, geoengineering must make the situation work somehow” and therefore it’s not worth studying. If it’s not studied how can you possibly know?
As the saying goes, “don’t let perfect stand in the way of good”.
Be specific. Which ones?
This statement is correct, but you are bringing it up against the point being made about how taking a “treating the symptoms” of climate change might improve things a bit in the short term, but leads to worse long term outcomes.
I have stated that the current status of said studies do not have sufficient evidence to merit the claims you are making. If you think otherwise please provide some evidence/papers/links etc. otherwise we’re in a Russell’s teapot situation here.
Unless your definition of “studying” is the argument that because the situation is bad enough it’s worth trying, at scale, whatever approach in the hope it improves things somewhat… Because that’s the argument that many use in order to sell dangerous and unethical grifts which seem promising and ‘harmless’. (I’m linking that article specifically because it’s “neutral journalism” at it’s worst and I’m curious at what you take away from it…)
No. You are the one who said “Using your metaphor the thing you’re proposing to “treat the symptoms” has side effects which worsen the disease thus causing more real damage and worsening symptoms.”
I then asked you to be specific. You tell me which ones have side effects that “worsen the disease.” You don’t get to Uno-reverse at me until you answer the question first.
I literally linked one… Try reading first before responding.
A simple sounding answer that is almost impossible to put into practice in a short period of time.
You can’t simply go cold turkey.
Far too many people would suffer, and mostly the people who aren’t the worst causes of the problem.
And even if any government tried, the effort would be delayed and watered down by decades of lawsuits and attacks from basically everyone.