this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
123 points (97.7% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2322 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
little_cow@lemmy.world
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
123
Experts call for global moratorium on efforts to geoengineer climate (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Considering we can't even get heads or state or imagining-they're-heads-of-states to not:

  • Wage war on neighboring countries.
  • Try to usurp their own government.
  • Promote wild conspiracy theories.
  • Be ragingly against personal freedom even in the US, the countries that is supposedly all about that.
  • Be ragingly anti-intellectual.

... I really have exactly zero hope we can do shit-all about climate issues. We can't even handle far smaller and far more benign (by comparison) issues on a national level, what hope do we have to handle things that require everyone to pull in the same direction, on an international one.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

… I really have exactly zero hope we can do shit-all about climate issues. We can’t even handle far smaller and far more benign (by comparison) issues on a national level, what hope do we have to handle things that require everyone to pull in the same direction, on an international one.

you wanna hear something even more depressing? people first started talking about the greenhouse effect (though it wasn't called that,) in 1824. (Fourrier and Pouilett were the first two. Fourier in 1824, and pouillet in 1836 or so,). In 1896, we have the first scientist getting concerned about it. that credit goes to Svanta Arrhenius.

Oh. and Popular Mechanics ran an article about it being a problem in 1912. complete with this picture:
In short. We've known for over a century and still fucked the earth up.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

"A few centuries... That's next week's problem. No one I ever know will be alive to see that."

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I have a real issue with this.

We have been (detrimentally) geoengineering the climate for centuries by pumping out co2 and that has been done by nations wherever and whenever they have wanted.

If a country wants to start a program of beneficial geoengineering why should that be stopped?

[–] 768@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It might backfire and cause more problems.

[–] FatTony@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Excuse my ignorance but with the way things are going. It's doesn't look like we have much to lose.

[–] 768@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you remember hearing about Tambora, Krakatoa and their global effects? Do you remember ozone crisis? How we found out about the severity of the impact lead had on people? Acid rain? Nuclear winter?

Effective and thus extensive geoengineering requires an understanding of biogeochemical processes that we don't have.

[–] FatTony@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well we didn't solve those by doing nothing. And given how unwilling we seem to be in reducing our footprint. I'd say this is our only viable way.

[–] 768@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

The only way is endangering food supply and if we stop we might have hyper climate change?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Nuclear winter didn't happen and the jury is out of it could happen that way. Everyone knew lead was bad but the thought was because it was heavier than air the dust would settle quickly, tests in real life conditions showed that it didn't. The ozone thing yeah give you that.

[–] Evehn@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But we HAVE so much to loose. At the moment, even a worse case scenario is one when earth goes on and adapts. Even humans would likely survive. And it's not even decided we'll get that.

But as proven time and time again by the shitty predictions we are getting, we don't have anything close to a true understanding of the systems in which we live.

So on top of that, you'd prefer a single nation, most likely with economic interests well active in their decision making, to try and forcefully modify the system we don't really understand?

Count me out.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I would love to live in a world where a few powerful nation did have such influnce that their economic interests didn't screw over the world. But i was born in a world like that.

[–] FatTony@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At the moment, even a worse case scenario is one when earth goes on and adapts. Even humans would likely survive. And it’s not even decided we’ll get that.

What makes you think this? Do you have a source for this? I am genuinely curious here.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 2 points 1 year ago

Because we could eat phytoplankton and moss which could take care of oxygen production. We couldn't swim in the oceans or spend much time outside but we create digital fake worlds for ourselves.

Humans are unfortunately and fortunately very scrappy inventive creatures that a lot would have to happen to completely wipe us out. It's not to say the future wouldn't be miserable and unlike anything we currently know but the will to keep on living is very strong on average.

It's unlikely and pretty hard to get a runaway Venus effect on earth but not impossible, but it would be likely to restabilize at some point and life would go on. It takes a lot of effort to sterilize a planet even if not nearly as much to fuck with its balance.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

How? All the ideas that are being looked at come from natural cycles that are being exploited. No one is talking about releasing some chemical that no one understands up there they are talking about causing algae blooms, inducing acid rain in the middle of the oceans, and painting stuff white. This isn't cutting edge. Also it isn't a one and done deal, it will require constant infusing of cash.

We know that sulfur and dust in the area lowers temperatures. The experiment has been run before. Look at average temperatures and see what happens around the WW2 era where steel has to be made using cheap dirty sulfur rich coal quickly.

We know painting stuff white makes it reflect more energy.

We know that alga eats a lot of carbon and sinks. We also know that alga is always limited by a few trace elements it can't get enough of.

None of this stuff is new. All of it is going to cost a fortune every single year. Presumably if somehow someway painting stuff white made things go crazy we would stop spending tax dollars on it.

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because we don't know wtf we're doing when it comes to geoengineering?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are right, best do nothing as we slowly die.

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We know what we need to do (stop using fossil fuels for starters), but corporations and governments won't do it, so yeah, we're probably pretty screwed.

[–] Kaliax@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Also consider climate cycles such as ice ages. Imagine a coalition finds a wildy successful heat reduction strategy and it impacts well beyond what was anticipated? How would things go if we accelerrated glaciation down to the gulf of Mexico? The Earth's wobble and axial tilt are part of this process over incredible periods of time.. CFC's and the ozone are a good example of rapid and unanticipated results of human inputs. No easy answer even with stakes as high as they appear.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do we know what will happen if do nothing?

[–] Kaliax@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

I'm not arguing to do nothing, just attempting some clarity on the broader strokes of the issues. Much of our understandings of natural processes are still immature and incomplete - appreciating that fact should be a guiding principle for any near-to-hand actions.

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Luckily, we're experts at rising the temperature. If we accidentally bring in the next ice age early, it's back to coal.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 points 1 year ago

Well except we burned a shit ton of it already and could struggle to burn enough without seeding thicker clouds thus making the glaciation worse.

Part of the problem is cloud coverage acts as a reflector and if you get enough of it how do you get clear skies again? To stop it?

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Agreed. Hell, when we decided that the global shipping industry should not use the dirtiest fuel possible, the lack of sulfur oxide being emitted raised the ocean temperature quite a bit almost immediately. There are things we can do that will have the same effect without the massive negative consequences that sulfur oxide carries.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Well they are allowed to use it they just have to use scrubbers and even then it is the conditions of the water and how close too shore. It was to stop acid rain.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We know what we did to cause the problem. Anything we do to mitigate the effects of what we did will only encourage us to continue making those same mistakes.

Forget carbon offsets, just reduce carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. Forget geoengineering and carbon capture. Just tax emissions and budget for carbon neutral infrastructure and reducing car dependence.

Anything we do to fix the climate that doesn't stop us from screwing up the climate will only enable further mistakes.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah, carbon offsets amd the whole carbon footprint ullahit are just businesses blaming the public to deflect attention so they can keep on doing whatever they want. Just like blaming the public for water shortages when the vast, vast majority is used for industry.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Geoengineering is highly controversial, but discussions of its feasibility are gathering pace as the impacts of extreme weather, driven by climate breakdown, grip the planet.

Governments should also allow academics to investigate the possibilities of geoengineering, chiefly in the form of solar radiation management, which involves attempting to reduce the amount of sunlight striking the Earth’s surface, for instance through whitening clouds to be more reflective, or setting up mirrors in space.

“Geoengineering, like direct air capture, is a deeply uncertain techno-solution that fossil fuel executives love to push to take pressure off their core business of selling oil, gas, and coal, which, as more and more people are realizing, is causing rapid and irreversible destruction of our planet’s habitability,” he told the Guardian.

As a climate scientist, my worst nightmare is continued fossil fuel expansion accompanied by solar geoengineering followed by termination shock.

Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science at University College London, who was not involved with the panel, said many scientists had strong feelings on geoengineering.

He added: “A strong international moratorium against solar radiation management is required, to ensure no country or company tries to ‘fix climate change’ with disastrous consequences.”

The original article contains 938 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

Can't wait

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I'm going to assume they aren't counting industry in that.

load more comments
view more: next ›