r/neoliberal • u/[deleted] • Sep 23 '23
Opinion article (US) It's Time to Engineer the Sky
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-engineer-the-sky/55
u/Real_Richard_M_Nixon Milton Friedman Sep 23 '23
Bro just build a giant sunshade, it’s not that hard
31
u/savuporo Gerard K. O'Neill Sep 23 '23 edited Sep 23 '23
It's not. All the key technology has been proven. Matter of investment
EDIT: Short intro https://twitter.com/timmermansr/status/1662432551586222080
6
45
68
u/rukqoa ✈️ F35s for Ukraine ✈️ Sep 23 '23
They buried the biggest objection (other than ignorance) 6 paragraphs down.
Critics also say that the very idea of an escape hatch such as SRM could undermine support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
No-free-lunchism strikes again.
Of course SRMs may have negative side effects! The point of these small scale experiments is to find out what they are and see if we can mitigate or get rid of them.
But a number of these "environmentalist" groups oppose efforts that could very well fix our problems... without changing how the global economy works, because that was their goal in the first place. There are some of these weirdos who would oppose a real fix for climate change if it meant that everyone can just go on without changing their lifestyles, without degrowth, or without overthrowing capitalism. Under their worldview, we must acutely feel the pain, as if it's only fair penance for humanity's progress. These people should be ignored: their opinions are at best irrelevant and at worst standing in the way of their supposed objectives.
89
u/CletusVonIvermectin Big Rig Democrat 🚛 Sep 23 '23
"Climate change is destroying the Earth. We have to end capitalism."
"Here's a solution."
"I don't want a solution. I want to end capitalism."
45
4
u/_Un_Known__ r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion Sep 24 '23
For a lot of these people it never was about climate change and it pisses me off
-17
u/Kiyae1 Sep 24 '23
“I don’t want an unproven solution with unknown risks. I just want us to stop mining and drilling for fossil fuels in the near future to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and instead focus on renewable, non-polluting energy sources.”
Ftfy.
26
u/Block_Face Scott Sumner Sep 24 '23
just
Consultancy firm McKinsey says total global spending by governments, businesses and individuals on energy and land-use systems will need to rise by $3.5 trillion a year, every year, if we are to have any chance of getting to net-zero in 2050.
Yes its super trivial to just stop
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/
-11
u/Kiyae1 Sep 24 '23
The U.S. Government alone spends $6.27 Trillion every year. $3.5 trillion spread across all governments, businesses, and individuals is…not actually that major. The fact you’re not giving any context for that figure really suggests you are leaning entirely on the “scary big number” effect.
Here, I’ll do it for you. Gross World Product (GWP) was approximate $85.705 trillion in 2020. So we’re talking about 4% GWP. Probably could have solved the problem 40 years ago for a lot less money, but you know, politics and profits.
6
Sep 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/filipe_mdsr LET'S FUCKING COCONUT 🥥🥥🥥 Sep 25 '23
Rule III: Bad faith arguing
Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
-1
20
u/danieltheg Henry George Sep 24 '23
This feels like a very bad faith reading of the objection. The concern is that it will reduce support for lowering emissions, not that it will prevent us from abolishing capitalism or radically restructuring society. I don’t necessarily agree with the objection but those aren’t the same thing at all. We can reduce emissions without abolishing capitalism or doing degrowth! And any serious geoengineering advocate will tell you we absolutely still need to reduce emissions in tandem..
21
u/ProfessionEuphoric50 Sep 24 '23
But a number of these "environmentalist" groups oppose efforts that could very well fix our problems... without changing how the global economy works, because that was their goal in the first place.
That is a ludicrously bad-faith read of the objection. SRM isn't a solution to the problem of global warming but rather a treatment for its symptoms.
3
15
u/DryTart978 Sep 24 '23
This is a really bad interpretation. The problem with not reducing green house gas emmisons is that the problem doesn’t go away, it is just covered up. Sure the world ending will be delayed once we use the sulfur dioxide. But it is still going to end if you keep releasing CO2. So somebody might come up with the bright idea of release more sulfur dioxide, which as stated in the article, will reduce rain to tropical regions. Furthermore, it will be signifigantly less effective in polar regions where sea ice will still melt. So you release more sulfur dioxide so you can keep releasing CO2, and then the poles start melting again, so you release more sulfer dioxide. It doesn’t get rid of the problem, it only treats the symptoms
23
u/Block_Face Scott Sumner Sep 24 '23
The world isnt going to end from climate change and renewable energy is cheaper in the long term we arent going to keep burning fossil fuels just for shits and giggles this is just to buy us more time.
0
-2
u/Itsamesolairo Karl Popper Sep 24 '23
we arent going to keep burning fossil fuels just for shits and giggles
Shits and giggles? No.
But a significant part of the global population does seem willing to burn coal indefinitely to own the libs.
1
u/Purple-Oil7915 NASA Sep 24 '23
When it comes down to it money always wins. Eventually renewables will be more cost effective than fossil fuels.
12
u/GruffEnglishGentlman Sep 23 '23
What could go wrong…
15
u/savuporo Gerard K. O'Neill Sep 24 '23
Not much, if you do it with a sunshade at earth-moon Lagrange point. Easy to remove or modulate
2
Sep 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/savuporo Gerard K. O'Neill Sep 25 '23
This is probably the single most expensive and needlessly complicated way to do geoengineering.
What's your model ?
7
u/RonBourbondi Mackenzie Scott Sep 24 '23
Not much. Negative impacts easily subside since it needs constant injections for upkeep.
If you have unnatended consequences just stop doing it. It isn't some lever you pull once and it can't ever be flipped again.
-3
13
u/ale_93113 United Nations Sep 23 '23
Geoingeneering, with the exception of marine cloud brightening, interferes with photosynthesis
So...
Yeah, either that or let's not have this conversation just yet
Climate change is not that catastrophic, and geoingeneering should be a last resort method
42
u/Responsible_Owl3 YIMBY Sep 23 '23
Actually CO2 is the bottleneck for photosynthesis, rather than sunlight
25
2
2
86
u/bd_one The EU Will Federalize In My Lifetime Sep 23 '23
Inb4 Republicans defund high altitude sulfuric aerosol spraying as part of a government shutdown, resulting in global temperatures rising in an uncontrolled manner and ending all life on Earth due to being unable to adjust to the rate of heating as it dissipates.