Still doesn’t solve the problem of pollution, deforestation, animal extinction, etc, that come with our excessive levels of consumption and expansion.
-
-
-
You really need to read 'Enlightenment Now' bro
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’m not at all disagreeing btw, I’m all for proper geoengineering, but it is hardly going to be a complete alternative to confronting how we consume and economically grow.
-
FWIW, I've also been very critical of runaway consumerism in my book 'Spent'.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I would note also that geoengineering isn’t an all-or-nothing deal. It could be used as a supplemental strategy alongside emissions reduction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Problems should be solved. This specific approach may net be the right one.
-
Except for simple problems there are no solutions, only trade offs.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It might be. Moralizing on its own has almost no effect on anything. But geoengineering involves huge choices and really complex execution which as we know can lead to huge mistakes and mammoth cock-ups. We need the smartest people in the world all telling the truth about it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's not a climate change that is morally apocalyptic, its denying it or doing nothing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They don't see anything symbolic about it, though; they *literally* believe it's the Apocalypse.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.