←back to thread

480 points riffraff | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
dang ◴[] No.44463006[source]
[stub for offtopicness]
replies(15): >>44461279 #>>44461280 #>>44461309 #>>44461334 #>>44461385 #>>44461408 #>>44461448 #>>44461634 #>>44461664 #>>44461731 #>>44461790 #>>44462060 #>>44462362 #>>44462565 #>>44462687 #
integricho ◴[] No.44461280[source]
It does not sound like a subtle signal or warning about crossing a threshold, more like a we are already past the point of no return and now we can just sit back and watch as the apocalypse unfolds, first row seats for all recent generations.
replies(3): >>44461302 #>>44461515 #>>44461559 #
delusional ◴[] No.44461302[source]
Climate advocates in general try to avoid implying that we've already crossed a threshold, as that breeds hopelessness.

They want decisive and ambitious action, you can't get that if we all turn to doomerism.

replies(8): >>44461316 #>>44461344 #>>44461352 #>>44461382 #>>44461406 #>>44461444 #>>44461536 #>>44462945 #
jes5199 ◴[] No.44461406[source]
okay then why is it taboo to suggest geoengineering interventions like injecting sulfer into the upper atmosphere? The climate advocates don’t have any decisive and ambitious actions that they actually are willing to try.
replies(2): >>44461455 #>>44462487 #
not_kurt_godel ◴[] No.44461455[source]
They are, Biden funded research into it in 2022 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/what-is-solar-geoengineering.... Biden being the same POTUS who proposed and signed IRA aka the 'Green New Deal'.

Now that we've established that, what's your decisive and ambitious action you've made towards addressing climate change, so we can learn from the example you've set?

replies(1): >>44465664 #
jes5199 ◴[] No.44465664{3}[source]
great, let’s scale up https://makesunsets.com/
replies(1): >>44469998 #
not_kurt_godel ◴[] No.44469998{4}[source]
That's not injecting sulfur into the upper atmosphere though? Is this your company?
replies(1): >>44474588 #
1. jes5199 ◴[] No.44474588{5}[source]
no, just some acquaintances. but the only people even doing the experiment, as far as I can tell
replies(1): >>44475577 #
2. not_kurt_godel ◴[] No.44475577[source]
I don't necessarily disagree (or agree) with the calculus that we arguably could and should be injecting SO2 into the stratosphere right now as an emergency measure, but your acquaintances are certainly not the only ones thinking about it. As the first article I linked mentions, the idea has been around since at least 1965 and references a 2021 landmark report. The White House OSTP also released their own 44-page report on it in 2023 (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/30/white-house-releases-report-... , https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/...), pursuant to the research plan from the 2022 article I initially shared.

I'd also probably agree that there is likely misguided opposition to it as a tool in the climate change arsenal as well from "climate advocates" (taboo). The same could also be said for fission nuclear power which, unlike SO2 geoengineering, would substantially address the root cause of the problem - emissions - with fewer risks and unknowns. (France, for example, being a real-world example of how many countries could almost completely decarbonize their electric generation in a proven and scalable way with nuclear fission.)

If we further broaden our scope of misguided opposition from just "climate advocates" to voting polities in countries that are positioned to meaningfully address climate change at a global scale, then we're really getting to the root of the issue. The single most impactful action the average person could take to fight climate change in the US is to vote blue. It's an effectively binary choice to give badly-needed societal support and investment to climate-relevant initiatives like your friends' and so many others.

replies(1): >>44475932 #
3. jes5199 ◴[] No.44475932[source]
I vote blue but I don’t see the dems fast-tracking fission! Or really anything else particularly effective about climate for the last 30 years.

anyway my model is: we just have to survive a few years before Wright’s Law pushes solar+batteries so cheap that fossil is priced out of the market. Thus aerosol injection to bridge the gap until drawdown

replies(1): >>44477570 #
4. not_kurt_godel ◴[] No.44477570{3}[source]
If you can link me a credible model that shows we can get to net zero that way, then great. Otherwise my understanding is we need all the solar+batteries we can get but it won't be enough to meet even 1/3 of projected demand by 2050.
replies(1): >>44484752 #
5. jes5199 ◴[] No.44484752{4}[source]
here you go: https://www.tonyseba.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Rethinki...
replies(1): >>44487035 #
6. not_kurt_godel ◴[] No.44487035{5}[source]
Ok, that's a whitepaper from 2020 using a proprietary model. Anything peer-reviewed?