Hacker News Reader

Comment by wing-_-nuts | Hacker News Reader

I've read many of the recent popSci books on global warming, and I fully believe that the path we're on leads to catastrophic warming (3c+).

I also believe that many geoengineering techniques are dangerous and we should be focusing on limiting CO2, as that's the only safe way to address global warming.

Having said all that, I simply do not believe we'll stand by and watch the world burn without trying a 'ministry of the future' style geoengineering effort. Is it ideal? No way, but IMHO it will happen. It drives me insane that the scientific community is so vehemently against geoengineering research for fear that it will create a moral hazard that makes it's deployment more likely.

View on HN

The prevailing view right now appears to be that limiting CO2 is no longer sufficient.

Yes. But one danger is once we start geoengineering, people will give up on trying to limit carbon emissions

There's no way geoengineering will be consequence free. I think when we start using it as a temporary measure it will become very clear what the downsides are, and that reducing our emissions are still the best path forward.

I just don't buy the apocalyptic doomerism so breathlessly described in most books on global warming. When it gets bad enough, we will act. It won't be ideal, but there's no way we're just going to sit by, accept our fate and let the world burn.

The assumption here is that when it gets really bad we will still be able to act. The problem is that the earth system is incredibly complex and may be able to absorb a lot of energy in ways that aren’t easy to reverse (at least in ways that are comfortable to humans.) There’s a reason we call these things “tipping points”: like unbalancing a piece of heavy furniture, you might not have the strength to catch it once it’s gone past a certain point.

> I think when we start using it as a temporary measure it will become very clear what the downsides are

It seems more likely we won't know the downsides until the damage is done, which is what happened with using fossil fuels in the first place.

The only factor that has any bearing is whether total emissions drop to an acceptable level, and are projected to continue doing so. Under such a scenario, "trying to" limit carbon emission would be a moot point. There is no reason to believe geoengineering in itself would lead to people throwing up their hands at the problem. The entire point is to aggressively lower emissions.

Notwithstanding, this is already a solved problem for the long-run, just not the short-run. Renewables are heavily invested and improve in efficiency and cost perpetually. Battery/storage is also improving. Even previously non-abatable tech is starting to see emission-free innovation and nuclear is helping bridge the gap (or should). The issue is that demand for fossil fuels in East Asia is growing faster than innovation lowers it.

I agree however that we don't have time to wait for the downcurve to play out naturally through the market. Some level of policy may still be required to both limit fossil fuel use and accelerate adoption of alternatives. This is an imminent problem that will cost billions and some lives.

This is called "moral hazard", and it is something to consider. Yes, moral hazard is a danger, but doing nothing is also a danger.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146...

Honestly, I think the future is a combination of geoengineering and carbon reduction policies.

The earlier we realize this the better. Geo-engineering needs a lot of research to minimize risk and find effective/feasible solutions. I don't think we would have the time when we decide it is suddenly too hot and need a solution now. I'm not sure if it is that the populace at large dose not like geoengineering, or if its just a combination of fear of the unknown and a vocal minority of naturalists, but I think it is for the best we start the conversation now so at least many people can warm up to the idea.

Carbon policy can't be the only solution simply because, not every nation is on board with carbon neutral policies, either because of naivete, arrogance, pressure from public and or private interest groups. Even if we we get every nation onboard with carbon neutrality, what is to say they will stay that way on the next N centuries of election cycles?

>I've read many of the recent popSci books on global warming

Have you read any of the IPCC reports? Are you familiar with the RCPs?

I've read the summaries and yeah I'm vaguely familiar with the RCPs from various youtube vids covering the topic. I think the last I've seen for projections off our current commitments is 2.7-3.4C.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com