Either way, it would be far cheaper to switch our energy production to renewables, then to geo-engineer on a planet scale. We aren't doing that in any meaningful way.
Instead we pat ourselves on the back for reducing US coal energy generation to 37%. Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas...
It's still a huge improvement, cutting CO2 output by half and eliminating other byproducts.
Yes, there has been GDP growth since then, which is great... But the atmosphere doesn't care about GDP. What it needs are reductions.
Homes aren't the only thing destroyed by rising sealevels. Arable land that is under saltwater is a lot less arable.
A very large share of arable land is at a low elevation above sea level along waterways; land distance from the coast doesn't control the effect of sea-level rise.
> If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry.
Well, except that its impossible geographically to do that without also flooding inland arable areas. Flooding America's coastline also means flooding (among other prime agricultural areas) much of California's Central Valley.
A good chunk of arable land and aquifers will be affected by rising sea levels as well.
Really, our only hope is somehow all that land that is too cold to farm now...becomes more practical to farm. :/
www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/james-lovelock-the-prophet-20071101