• Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have a real issue with this.

    We have been (detrimentally) geoengineering the climate for centuries by pumping out co2 and that has been done by nations wherever and whenever they have wanted.

    If a country wants to start a program of beneficial geoengineering why should that be stopped?

    • Kaliax@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also consider climate cycles such as ice ages. Imagine a coalition finds a wildy successful heat reduction strategy and it impacts well beyond what was anticipated? How would things go if we accelerrated glaciation down to the gulf of Mexico? The Earth’s wobble and axial tilt are part of this process over incredible periods of time… CFC’s and the ozone are a good example of rapid and unanticipated results of human inputs. No easy answer even with stakes as high as they appear.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. Hell, when we decided that the global shipping industry should not use the dirtiest fuel possible, the lack of sulfur oxide being emitted raised the ocean temperature quite a bit almost immediately. There are things we can do that will have the same effect without the massive negative consequences that sulfur oxide carries.