Yep. IMHO stopping direct habitat destruction is a higher priority than obsessing about carbon emissions.
Global warming is not an existential threat to humanity, and geoengineering, not economic self-flagellation, is the way to handle it.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interesting perspective,
@primalpoly. Any chance you'd be down to discuss this (and other topics) on my podcast? -
Sure. Email me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But geo-engineering would create even more second order effects which would need to be controlled, so even more problems.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
By the same token, neither is nuclear war. But both are existential threats to billions of people.
-
One is much more so than the other.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
the fundamental flaw in the X risk argument is assumption that our technology and cost to address remains consistent across time
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wealthy nations will ride it out, anyway, so better to facilitate everyone becoming wealthy (which means more emissions in the process).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Precisely why any climate deal must include China and India.
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.