• Void_Reader@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The ‘future’ is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn’t make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.

    Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you’re talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It’s all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of ‘termination shock’ and countless others.

    Have a look at the scientific literature: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stratospheric-aerosol-injection-tactics-and-costs-Smith-Wagner/e4e5a78335eda8c16557b32af915798b06091362#cited-papers

    Would you seriously risk the future of life on Earth on something this experimental?

    I fear this arrogance will kill a lot of people and cause a lot of suffering.

      • Void_Reader@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Firstly, that isn’t ‘already done’. It’s a PR statement from the Chinese government about plans. The stuff they have already done, like reducing hail etc., is nowhere near the same level to what is needed to stop climate change.

        Secondly,

        Radical solutions such as seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles could theoretically help reduce temperatures, but could also have major unforeseen consequences, and many experts fear what could happen were a country to experiment with such techniques.

        This is from your source ^

        So is this:

        In a paper last year, researchers at National Taiwan University said that the “lack of proper coordination of weather modification activity (could) lead to charges of ‘rain stealing’ between neighboring regions,” both within China and with other countries. They also pointed to the lack of a “system of checks and balances to facilitate the implementation of potentially controversial projects.”

        Think of the geopolitical mess this kind of thing would create. If it works that is.

        • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, there is always the option to use sunsails in orbit. These could also be motorised and adapt to the needed parameters.

          There are a ton of solutions. And the weather and climate engineering is just one of them.

          • Void_Reader@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?

            Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn’t be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.

            Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.

            I agree there are many solutions. I don’t think markets and capital are going to make them happen.

            We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.

            • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?

              Well, a fee could theoretically be possible. Farmers with plants that need shadow could pay for shielding. In the end the end consumer pays the price.

              Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn’t be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.

              👍

              Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.

              Let me rephrase it: it’s boring. Nada used old ass Russian rockets for years. So there is not much innovation there anyway.

              I agree there are many solutions. I don’t think markets and capital are going to make them happen.

              I think that depends on demand. Some airlines already offer climate compensation packages. An additional payment to compensate your emissions. Such money could also be invested into sun shield projects.

              We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.

              I agree on the tech solutions. Let’s see them being implemented before chopping on the foundation of our economics.

                • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I know that some people claim that. But in their mind they would rather stop airlines and flight overall.

                  And since this is unreasonable, compensation should be the second best step in your mind?

                  Because I don’t care. But from your standpoint it should be better than no compensation, right?

                  • Void_Reader@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m actually in favour of replacing most jet airliners with rail and maybe electric airships. Most short-haul flights can be replaced by rail; it’s much more pleasant than flying anyway. Jets can be reserved for long-distance journeys. Being able to hop on a blimp would be cool, even if it’s slower. We can make them much better and safer with today’s tech.

                    I don’t like the ‘green offset’ thing because it makes it look like we’re ‘doing something’ when it’s actually not doing much at all. If you want to be a utilitarian, it would be much more effective to just donate to an effective charity every time you fly.