In addition to actual reporting, the NYT creates newslike ads for the fossil fuels industry. This results in disproportionate attention on high-risk approaches that involve anything other than phasing out fossil fuel use.

17 points

Hey, I’ve seen this one

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Tell me, does it fail catastrophically?

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points
*

There are a bunch of issues:

  • It requires maintaining technical infrastructure for longer than civilizations last
  • It changes the pole-to-equator temperature gradient, altering weather patterns worldwide
  • It changes rainfall distribution in ways that we’re not clear on yet, potentially risking agriculture
  • If we keep on burning fossil fuels but limiting temperature increase with a scheme like this, we still end up with ocean acidification, killing off pretty much everything with hard body parts in the oceans
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

If you let a sabretooth tiger loose into a playground full of unsuspecting children in order to catch the rats that are eating all the shrubs, does it fail catastrophically? Or was it just catastrophic to begin with?

In the struggle against human-caused climate change, this is a completely new avenue for humans to change the climate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Me too!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Say the line Bart!

Sigh Simpsons did it

YAAAAAAAAY!

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

This type of geoengineering feels real ripe for the law of unintended consequences.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

I don’t doubt that. However, mobilizing a truly sufficient “mundane” response may fail. If it does, the end result may indtead be a global response in the form of drastic geoengineering when the consequences of climate change are truly starting to have an effect.

The fact that these sorts of solutions exist is also why I really don’t vibe with doomers. Climate change is not going to be the “end of the world”, or even the end of civilization. Humanity will prevail, the real question is how. Climate change is a (relatively) slow catastrophy, and the worst case isn’t everybody dead, but rather a miserable existence where where global standard of living is thrown back maybe a hundred years with the added bonus of our enviroment being generally miserable to live in.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Isn’t that what an umbrella is for?

permalink
report
reply
1 point

At an individual level, yes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Then we need umbrellas for all to solve climate change /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

This petro puppet proposes perverse pseudoscientific prattle

permalink
report
reply
4 points

That’s a really neat alliteration! And also very true!

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The Simpsons did it already.

permalink
report
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 3.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.8K

    Posts

  • 6K

    Comments

Community moderators