• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    So, now will people get out of the way of geoengineering research? Or do we have to wait for the actual famines to start killing people?

    • KnitWit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      Why would I trust the people who did this with the task of geoengineering our way out of this? Because that’s who is pushing all of it. All of the major polluters are pushing that bullshit because funding research into nonsense is cheaper than reducing emissions. Sorry filks, we aren’t gonna stop pillaging the planet, but how about we reduce the sunlight that piwers the entire natural world instead? It’s the same as the many failed attempts at introducing species as biological controls, just on a grander scale.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Why would I trust the people who did this with the task of geoengineering our way out of this?

        No, it’s not the same people.

        And if nothing is done massive numbers of people will suffer and die. You’re advocating for just letting that happen?

        • KnitWit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          How is it not the same people? What type of geoengineering are you referring to? The main thing I’m referring to is the use of sulfide (I believe, something along those lines) particles to dim the solar input. Which is being pushed by Bill Gates and co., which fuck him by the way. Other options include dumping chemicals into the ocean that would absorb more co2 and precipitate to the bottom, funded by oil companies and sounds just as terrible as blotting out the sun.

          No, I’m not advocating for that to happen, I’m saying there is currently no method of geoengineering proposed or in development that is going to help anything. ‘We should geoengineer’ is no different than ‘let the ai centers burn up the planet, they’ll solve the climate crisis.’ It’s more delay tactics when we need to just sop the consumption.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            How is it not the same people? What type of geoengineering are you referring to?

            Solar geoengineering seems like the most promising. It’s largely being studied by climatologists. The people who are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are industrialists.

            Which is being pushed by Bill Gates and co., which fuck him by the way.

            So because one particular person you don’t like is involved, screw the science? Let the world burn rather than have it be saved with the involvement of people you don’t like? Wonderful attitude.

            Bill Gates is a major philanthropist, BTW. Not sure why you pick his name out as specifically hateworthy.

            Also, describing solar geoengineering as “blotting out the sun” suggests you’re not really familiar with how this stuff actually works. So when you say you don’t think any of the proposals will help anything that doesn’t give much weight to your opinion.

            • KnitWit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours ago

              You want to give me a brief rundown of how it works then? Cause all I’ve ever heard is using particulates flown into the atmosphere or using some form of cloud seeding to reduce solar load. The particulate one got tested in Turkey maybe? India? I forget, but the only thing I ever heard from that was it pissed off nearby nations and would require constantly dumping more particulates into the atmosphere. Purposely altering cloud formation as the other alternative I’ve heard of seems foolish. I’m not in favor, but I’d love to hear more details of what you think would work.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                No, I don’t want you to give me a rundown. I read the works of those climatologists to find out about that stuff, they’re professionals who understand what they’re talking about.

                • KnitWit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  Ok, then give me a rundown. Or name a study or author whose work you like. I am willing to be sold on the idea, because apparently my description is inaccurate.

    • Orcocracy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is the only sensible solution. Banning fossil fuel like we banned the chemicals that caused acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer? That’s crazy. Building hydro dams and electric trains? Crazier still. Setting off a volcano with a nuke to blot out the sun? Perfectly sensible.

    • notaviking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      This, yes if the world did not pollute and all of us changed tomorrow it would have been the best, but let’s not lie, this ship has not changed direction. I really think this will give us time and save the most we have to eventually change the ship’s direction. We have basically already geoengineered our way here, let’s geoengineer our way to a better world