this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
508 points (97.6% liked)

World News

39364 readers
2237 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Don't think I need to summarize this one. This is bad news for everyone.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 48 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

So, what does this all mean for us? It means we have even less time to get our act together. Reducing emissions isn’t just a good idea — it’s crucial.

I don't think this will motivate countries to dramatically increase emissions reduction efforts, but I think it will motivate countries to begin geoengineering. Geoengineering is cheaper and easier than rapid emissions reduction, and the results are more immediate. Yes, it doesn't solve the core problem, which is the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, but it treats the symptom, albeit temporarily. Why put a lot of time, money, and effort into fixing the core problem when you can spend comparatively less time, money, and effort just treating the symptom? Then you can just pretend the core problem doesn't exist and go about business as usual.

Edit: sorry, I should have added the /s.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

I don't think you realize what a collapsed ocean current means for us. This is existential, not business as usual. Anything we do from here on out that isn't in service of stopping this is signing our species death warrant.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Haha fricking euros enjoying their moderate climate - wait until they find out what’s real Midwest winter is like. And they want to take my truck and my gas stove? Eff them.

/too many conservatives probably

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah don't worry, Texas will get Saharan weather in exchange.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Not in Texas... but drought is my biggest fear with all of this...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm way more worried about mean sea level raising above much of our lower elevations. We're already raising dikes, also making them wider so they can easily be made even higher in the future, accounting for the most pessimistic of projections, but you can't really keep water out with dikes when the sea is pushing groundwater up. You can do it like the Dutch but if their pumps ever fail they're royally fucked. Electricity, availability of huge amounts of energy in general, is not something you want to rely on in these matters if you can avoid it.

We're probably going to end up with large areas of salt march interspersed by towns on mounds and a couple of lakes to construct those mounds, the dikes only making sure that they're high, not low, salt marches -- not elevation-wise but regarding how salty they are, how often they get flooded. The alternative would be to give up the marches completely and knowing our Frisians no that won't happen. Barley and sugar beets are naturally salt-resistent, btw, more plants are getting bred for it. Not to mention tasty veggies that allow you to retire your salt shaker

tl;dr: Wat mutt, dat mutt. Imagine Sisyphus happy.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

I'm pretty sure that's already signed, let's be real, nothing is going to happen, we're fucked

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Geoengineering is cheaper and easier than rapid emissions reduction

I don't know if your whole comment is sarcasm, but every part of this statement is wrong. We are in the very, very early stages of developing the technologies needed for the level of geoengineering required to mitigate what we have already done to the environment. To roll it out to the levels needed would be far more difficult and expensive that converting our entire way of life to renewables, which should really say how hard and expensive it would be given how utterly daunting of a task full conversion to renewables is.

Now, putting in token investment and paying lip service to geoengineering, that's cheaper and easier than switching to renewables. But that's not even treating the symptoms. That's just your standard con game against the broader population to try to manipulate the conversation.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

To roll it out to the levels needed would be far more difficult and expensive that converting our entire way of life to renewables

The cost of geoengineering solutions has been estimated to be less than $5b/yr, which includes R&D. In other words, this is something that the government of New York City (annual budget: >$100b) could easily do alone without any international support, even in the face of significant opposition.

In contrast, ending fossil fuel use requires significant international cooperation and is regularly stymied by opposing interests. NYC obviously cannot do it by itself.

So from a pragmatic perspective, geoengineering is definitely the easiest solution. In fact IMO the lack of progress on emission reduction makes it inevitable, at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.

Yeah, I could see that happening. Maybe even the US. Maybe Elon Musk reads a Twitter thread about geoengineering, decides it's the solution to warming, starts a company called GeoX and convinces Trump and the Republicans to give him and GeoX $5 billion a year, he buys a bunch of jets, fills them with sulfur dioxide and has them fart out a bunch of it around the Arctic every year. GeoX stocks soar, Musk becomes the first trillionaire, and the US federal government has added only a trivial amount to its already vast debt total. It almost doesn't matter if it works or not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The cost of geoengineering solutions has been estimated to be

A thought experiment on developing a and maintaining an aircraft fleet to inject dust into the stratosphere. Assuming global cooperation. Assuming that solution works. Assuming you can scale up the dust production without driving up cost. Assuming there are no side effects. Assuming variations in weather don’t trigger war now that there’s someone to blame. Assuming it doesn’t disrupt our food production. Assuming it doesn’t lead to additional extinction events. Assuming -0.3°c over 25 years is enough

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Every proposal regarding climate change involves numerous assumptions.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, it was sarcasm. But, I think the push for solar geoengineering, or as some people are calling it "solar radiation management" is coming.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Geoengineering is the most expensive, least effective choice. It risks making things worse and it risks triggering conflict over local effects. It’s not a good idea.

… but it’s starting to look like a necessary one, because we keep screwing up even more

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

At this point we should be exercising all options.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Yet all too many still don’t see the need and were actually backsliding. wtf, fellow humans?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

You tried, but your tone and wording was off. Some people would state all that fully believing things can continue and we'll tech out way out of trouble. And we WILL absolutely jump to geoengineering to try and preserve status quo, cost or not. The alternative is to change society dramatically, and that won't happen voluntarily. And the great news is once we start geoengineering, we dare not stop because the reaction will spike things even worse.