Hacker News Reader

>If you seriously believe that rising carbon levels constitute a catastrophic (or even existential) threat, then you should be open to these approaches.

My feeling is that a lot of environmentalists see climate change on the same way that fundamentalists see sexually transmitted diseases: as God (or nature’s) punishment for our immoral ways. Thus the solution is always change your behavior and stop doing the things that you like to do( for example have sex or live in too big of a house or eat meat or have too many kids). I think a lot of environmentalists would be disappointed if we could come up with a technical solution to global warming that allowed us to continue our lifestyle pretty much unchanged, just like a lot of fundamentalists were disappointed that condoms, antibiotics, and birth control allowed people to have sex without a lot of the consequences they had been warning people about.

My gut feeling is that geoengineering has to happen. It's like trying to get rich by saving pennies here and there (cutting emissions) vs investing in a successful business (geoengineering).

I mean, we can cut and cut emissions but doesn't that just delay the inevitable (assuming continued population growth)? Plus getting everyone to change their behaviour is a nice goal but at some point we'll need to admit it probably isn't possible to create the behaviour changes needed to stop a catastrophe (human nature and long-term thinking being what it is).

Many also see it as a way to use government to control peoples’ lifestyles. That’s why politics and laws get so much emphasis over technological solutions. That’s why the “Green New Deal” is primarily a jobs program rather than a carbon recapture Manhattan Project. You don’t need world government if the US invents practical carbon recapture technology.

Right. I feel like some people will accept nothing less than rolling back industrial civilization.

That’s a good analogy. Similarly some who fight abortion can simultaneously fight contraceptives or sex ed, despite one reducing the other.

Geoengineering can be practical and have positive return on investment. E.g. China restoring vast amounts of land in the Loess plateau has had positive economic benefits. The land is productive again, people got out of poverty, and it reduced silt pollution in the yellow river. Also, it captured enormous amounts of carbon, which was not even a primary goal for this project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loess_Plateau

There are many examples of smaller and larger projects that capture carbon, restore land and deliver economic value one way or another. IMHO this is the way forward for geoengineering. Having a lot of oysters in the NY harbors sounds awesome. Clean water, natural defenses against storm, and you get nice oysters. And it probably doesn't take billions to do it. As soon as you are talking about investments and returns on investment, it's a lot easier to get buy in from citizens, companies, and governments.

Dumping sand on beaches is economically useless even if it does have the useful side effect of capturing a lot of CO2. That makes it more of a tax than an investment. That's always going to be a hard sell. Much easier if there's an economic upside.

I dismiss nuclear on economic grounds. It's already one of the most expensive forms of energy and in a market where energy cost is decreasing due to the dropping cost of renewable energy that's a problem. And there are other 'hidden' cost related to e.g. enforcing non proliferation treaties and securing facilities accordingly, or the pesky problem of transporting and storing nuclear waste. If somebody figures out an order of magnitude cost reduction it just might keep up with renewables for a while. But that's pretty much what is needed. Two orders to be on the safe side long term. This might happen but likely not in the near future.

Making suboptimal investments is also a tax of a sort. Presumably the carbon capture projects that are optimal deployments of capital are already happening. If you want other “investments” to happen, you’re going to need to subsidize them.

So I think the question is: “is the subsidy required to trigger the investment <= $9/ton of CO2 removed”. If the answer is no, we’re still better off deploying capital dumping sand on beaches and otherwise letting investments happen via standard market mechanisms.

In a hypothetical world where you can convince people that spending a few trillion like that is a great idea, yes. In the real world, stuff like this goes a lot smoother if there's a plan to get some form of ROI. An investment without a economical return is more of an expense than an investment. I'd say other geoengineering projects have a better chance of getting funded because there's an obvious ROI.

I think there will have to be a market for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. I honestly don't have hope that humanity is smart enough to estimate the consequences of global warming and act optimally. The biggest problem is that the richest countries will suffer the least from warming and some will even benefit.

More likely, I think a 3rd world country will realize how cheap and easy it is to pump sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide cools the planet at a ridiculously low cost but then you get things like irritated lungs and acid rain. For some country, the costs of warming will outweigh the costs of using such a harmful approach and this country will be able to act unilaterally.

The threat from using sulfur dioxide may be enough to push countries who only marginally suffer from global warming to actually do something. I don't think it's possible to combat climate change without immediate and present danger.

If that scenario ever comes to pass, I think the only thing it will push richer countries to do is to invade the third world country culpable and kill anyone poisoning the atmosphere. Problem solved, cheaply.

I think you'd have to anticipate it to stop it. To start the pollution you'd basically just need a giant fire. It'd be really hard to put out. It'd be similar to when the oil wells were set ablaze when the US invaded Iraq.

> If you dismiss them out of hand (and I find that these dismissals typically have an emotional and sanctimonious undertones), then I'm going to have to conclude that you don't want to solve the problem you profess to care about.

Do you see any irony in you dismissing out of hand anyone who disagrees with you, by saying the above?

There are very good reasons to oppose the expansion of nuclear power based on reasonable and well-founded understanding of the technologies, economics, and impacts.

To dismiss those who disagree is just zealotry of another kind.