Comment by consumer451 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by consumer451 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Why?

Well, let's say we use sulfur. For the sake of argument, let's say it's not the EU, but some private SV-funded org.

So, what is the legal/geopolitical liability for that? What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to the most insane monsoon/desertification half-century in 1 billion's people area, in known history? What then?

What if the EU's geoengineering dropped Russian temps by -2C on average? Do you realize the geopolitical b.s. that would start? Forget the fake NATO bullshit, now they have a real argument!

We live on one tiny globe ffs, we need to agree on this shit.

By agree, I mean we need to allow risk to be diversified, like we need a global risk pool for geoengineering, and we better get on that soon!

It sounds like it's a huge problem, doesn't it? Well, one of the benefits of giving all the power to around 3000 billionaire dudes is that this is a far smaller number to get to agree on something.

Instead of multi-billion citizen democracy, and all the issues that involves... we just need to convince 3000 dudes.

Is this actually a potential benefit of wealth & power concentration? It really seems like it is!

> What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to to the most insane monsoon/desertification

That's unrealistic. Climate models aren't good enough to predict the regional-level consequences of large-scale interventions (not to mention that scientists are people, and they might be averse to creating an international flashpoint).

Realistically, it will create/exacerbate international tensions. The monsoon/desertification will be linked to geoengineering with or without scientific consensus and whether or not they were really caused by geoengineering.

As the climate models improve by incorporating active intervention data it will be possible to decrease adverse consequences.

It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries/individuals might try.

But, yeah, I agree with you in the end.

> It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries might try.

That will be far too late. I mean, nearly the entire EU has reached record temps this year... if not now, then when? Wait until AMOC stops? Does anyone have any idea the havoc that this will create? We will be a dry arctic climate. Ireland and UK first, the rest of us next.

We need multiple Manhattan Project-level projects in the EU, for insulation + renewables + batteries. When we let Northvolt die, I almost cried. Fuck the German bankers who are somehow beholden to Moscow, and we cannot pray for Norwegian money. We need to take care of this shit.

We are more exposed to climate change and economically to China-focused manufacturing than any large group on the planet.

However, we are larger than the USA, we can do this. We have to do this.

Meanwhile, we have to get the entire planet on-board, especially by getting Moscow out of the 19th Century, and their insane imperialist ambitions.

No big deal. At the rate of Reform/AfD/KO/Rassemblement National election projections, we in Europe are entirely fucked.

What the fuck? Forget "EU regulations," is anyone actually paying attention to what actually matters?

> we cannot pray for Norwegian money

Just for the record, our oil fund is "only" about $2.2 trillion. It's huge relative to our population and huge in general, but it would quickly dry up if divided among all of EU. Even just divided among Norwegians it would "only" amount to like $500k per person.

So sure it's a lot of money but it's also not really as astronomical as many seem to think. Elon Musk alone is almost worth half that and will probably catch up if things continue the way they are.

> What if the EU's geoengineering dropped Russian temps by -2C on average?

Then Russia makes some empty threats and the EU negotiates with Russia about what to do next.

You are really just suggesting paralysis even if you don't realize that is what you are doing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com