I see a lotmof replies being very negative about this, and I get the gut reaction, but this actually maybe a good thing, sort of. We don’t want it, but we may really need it
We’ve allowed assholes and billionaires to destroy the planet for such a long time that we will likely need measures beyond capturing CO2
Hell, capturing CO2 itself doesn’t make much sense until nearly all CO2 generating power sources have been replaced, and we’re not nearly close to that. And even when we do start really capturing CO2, if we spend half the world’s energy budged in that, we’d still need to keep that up for decades at least to get to acceptable levels. Yes, we’ve been pumping CO2 into our environment at alarming rates for a fucking long time, and all the energy we got in exchange also needs to be spent (plus a whole lot extra) to get it out of the atmosphere again.
One of the things we can do is using the same pollutants from back in the 80s that caused acidic rain. Obviously this isn’t what you want, but one of the side effects nis that it cooled the planet, which IS what we want. This could buy us maybe a few decades of reprieve while we fix the CO2 issue
yeah and if poisoning the air more does not help then we can try the water and earth some more. these are just not good even temporary solutions. you hit the nail on the head with we first and foremost have to stop producing greenhouse gases.
I’m not saying it’s a great solution. I’m saying that we may not have many other options, especially since we’re still not stopping with CO2 output. If anything, CO2 output is getting bigger and bigger because apparently humanity is suicidal and the people that can stop it don’t give a shit.
Yeah, once we have the vast VAST majority of energy generation through renewables and nuclear, then we can finally look into Carbon capture but that will cost a shit load of energy and decades, if not centuries to complete, and starting right now is stupid because we still have too much energy burning from fossil fuels
In the meantime, the high temperatures are hammering ecosystems, likely worse than acid rain would…
I’m calling it the worst of the options we may have.
I think the risks are too high though so for me they are not options. If I saw something that seemed doable. Like many add crap to the air would have planes burning fuel to fly around dispersing it. The one im pretty cool with is a solar shade. Theoretically its one space mission and its easy to reverse if we find issue with it.
Look up termination shock. I worked on SAI (detection and attribution management) for a project for about 6 months, so I know more than the average person on this.
They already do this with marine cloud brightening, which doesn’t inject sulfur dioxide high up into the atmosphere, so it’s lower risk and more local
This would give a pass to the polluters to continue full speed ahead, but will cause unequal effects across the globe. This will lead to more geopolitical conflict, possibly wars, as one state can cause another to go through a drought and potentially kill millions of people. At the same time, another area can get monsoons and similarly kill a bunch of people. And termination shock will almost certainly cause the entire biosphere on earth to collapse. If SAI is stopped, then that sun energy coming in and interacting with the existing high levels of CO2 will cause all of the negative climate change effects in a matter of months or years, instead of several decades.
I see a lotmof replies being very negative about this, and I get the gut reaction, but this actually maybe a good thing, sort of. We don’t want it, but we may really need it
We’ve allowed assholes and billionaires to destroy the planet for such a long time that we will likely need measures beyond capturing CO2
Hell, capturing CO2 itself doesn’t make much sense until nearly all CO2 generating power sources have been replaced, and we’re not nearly close to that. And even when we do start really capturing CO2, if we spend half the world’s energy budged in that, we’d still need to keep that up for decades at least to get to acceptable levels. Yes, we’ve been pumping CO2 into our environment at alarming rates for a fucking long time, and all the energy we got in exchange also needs to be spent (plus a whole lot extra) to get it out of the atmosphere again.
One of the things we can do is using the same pollutants from back in the 80s that caused acidic rain. Obviously this isn’t what you want, but one of the side effects nis that it cooled the planet, which IS what we want. This could buy us maybe a few decades of reprieve while we fix the CO2 issue
yeah and if poisoning the air more does not help then we can try the water and earth some more. these are just not good even temporary solutions. you hit the nail on the head with we first and foremost have to stop producing greenhouse gases.
I’m not saying it’s a great solution. I’m saying that we may not have many other options, especially since we’re still not stopping with CO2 output. If anything, CO2 output is getting bigger and bigger because apparently humanity is suicidal and the people that can stop it don’t give a shit.
Yeah, once we have the vast VAST majority of energy generation through renewables and nuclear, then we can finally look into Carbon capture but that will cost a shit load of energy and decades, if not centuries to complete, and starting right now is stupid because we still have too much energy burning from fossil fuels
In the meantime, the high temperatures are hammering ecosystems, likely worse than acid rain would…
I’m calling it the worst of the options we may have.
I think the risks are too high though so for me they are not options. If I saw something that seemed doable. Like many add crap to the air would have planes burning fuel to fly around dispersing it. The one im pretty cool with is a solar shade. Theoretically its one space mission and its easy to reverse if we find issue with it.
Look up termination shock. I worked on SAI (detection and attribution management) for a project for about 6 months, so I know more than the average person on this.
They already do this with marine cloud brightening, which doesn’t inject sulfur dioxide high up into the atmosphere, so it’s lower risk and more local
This would give a pass to the polluters to continue full speed ahead, but will cause unequal effects across the globe. This will lead to more geopolitical conflict, possibly wars, as one state can cause another to go through a drought and potentially kill millions of people. At the same time, another area can get monsoons and similarly kill a bunch of people. And termination shock will almost certainly cause the entire biosphere on earth to collapse. If SAI is stopped, then that sun energy coming in and interacting with the existing high levels of CO2 will cause all of the negative climate change effects in a matter of months or years, instead of several decades.