This is a very nice op-ed on climate that points out two obvious things on one else talks about: the heating will get worse no matter how much we cut emissions, and geoengineering (messing with the atmosphere to reflect sunlight) will become more appealinghttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-geoengineering.html …
-
-
Lots of fairly recent proof of concept that injecting sulfur bigly into the high atmosphere cools the planet. But again, you want decisions on this made by the United World Government and not some plutocrat worried about the ocean eating his beach househttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter …
Show this thread -
My own best case is that nature does us a solid and blows up a volcano or two, giving us a few more years to coordinate on global decarbonization. Or maybe does us a real favor and blows up a megavolcano, solving the problem more directly. The survivors can use all oil they want!
Show this thread -
1970s: sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is killing our planet 2020s: we must put all the sulfur dioxide we can in the atmosphere to save our planet
Show this thread -
Two available pathways to global cooling by 2100: 1) global coordination on moving the industrial economy off of fossil fuels and cement, with huge transfers of money to the developing world from richer nations 2) nuke a volcano What seems like the more American solution?
Show this thread -
Alternative framing of this same point (inspired by the trillion-dollar coin): as the world we live in gets stupider, ridiculous solutions begin to look smarter
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That sophistry was invented to protect the disposable container industry back in the 50s and repurposed for the petroleum industry later on.
-
They're still refining the newer campaigns: "don't let the libruls/Others steal your lifestyle" and "screw it, we're all gonna die anyway."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Good article, but every climate scientist I see says there is reason to hope. They advocate for massive solar and wind projects with a cumulative area the size of multiple US states. I see a future of a $10 or $30 Big Mac, not one where beef doesn't exist.
-
How do you define "normal"? My understanding of the science is that it will get worse before it gets better (as the oped says). But we could move high risk populations to lower risk areas, densify cities in rich countries, eat way less meat, and have something approaching normal.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.