Long-term should be defined. We can cool the planet the same amount long-term. Why is it taken as a given that any warming is irreversible when we have historical natural patterns showing global cooling (ice age)?
replies(4):
We'll probably find other interesting geo-engineering techniques over time, but it is very unwise to bank on future solutions. Many things, like nuclear fusion, have been "just around the corner" for years and years.
Climate change is accelerating at a rapid pace. Go look at a chart of CO2 emissions over time. I think people default to thinking we're in some stable or slow state, when we're far from it. We're not just increasing CO2 emissions, we're increasing the rate of emissions. Debt (tech, financial or otherwise) when you have a path to pay it off is a useful tool, but taking climate debt with no known good solution is very unwise.
The transition away from CO₂-emitting technologies is already underway, driven by market forces alone—solar power, for example, is now cheaper than oil. Proposing a substantial increase in global debt to further accelerate climate initiatives would need to demonstrate the following:
1. Spending Wisely: Invest in technologies that work and also do not introduce more problems.
2. Trusting Who Spends: Governments or others must use funds on solving the issue (not just giving money to cronies).
3. Global Cooperation: Countries working together (does Russia who sees warming as helpful comply).
4. Dealing With Inflation: The plan should address the inflation it causes, as it will raise living costs for people already struggling.
5. Better Use of Funds: Proving this use of funds is better than spending on other global issues.