In current political situation in the world cutting emissions can’t be implemented. Point.
It may happening naturally in 20 years after electric transportation will take place.
Plan B should be implemented if situation suddenly change to worse. If temperature jumps 3-5 C in one year. In this case the only option we had is to bomb Pinatubo volcano to make it erupting again.
But if we will have prepared and tested measures of Sun shielding, we could start them if situation will be worsening.
It all looks like political fight between Plan A and Plan B. You suggest not to implement Plan B as it would show real need to implement Plan A (cutting emissions). But the same logic works in the opposite direction. They will not cut emission to press policymakers to implement plan B. ))) It looks like prisoners dilemma of two plans.
It all looks like political fight between Plan A and Plan B. You suggest not to implement Plan B as it would show real need to implement Plan A (cutting emissions).
That’s one thing. But also, let’s say that we choose Plan B, and this is taken as a sign that reducing emissions is unnecessary and global emissions soar. We then start pumping aerosols into the atmosphere to cool the climate.
Then something happens and this process stops: we face unexpected technical hurdles, or maybe the implementation of this plan has been largely left to a smallish number of nations and they are incapable or unwilling to implement it anymore, perhaps a large-scale war occurs, or something like that. Because of the extra CO2, we’d probably be worse off than if we had even partially succeeded with Plan A. So what’s the expected payoff of choosing A or B?
As I said, I’m a bit wary of this, but I also think that it’s important to research climate engineering technologies and make plans so that they can be implemented if (and probably when) necessary. The best option would probably be a mixture of plans A and B, but as you said, it looks like a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma.
One more thing I would like to add:
The management of climate risks depends of their predictability and it seems that it is not very high. Climate is very complex and chaotic system.
It may react unexpectedly on our actions. This means that longterm actions are less favourable. The situation could change many times during their implementation.
The quick actions like solar management are better for management of poor predictable processes, as we could see result of our action and quickly cancel them or make them stronger if we don’t like the results.
I would also advocate for the mixture of both plans.
One more reason for it is that they work on different timescale. Cutting emission and removing CO2 on current level of technologies would takes decades to have an impact on climate. But geo-engineering has reaction time around 1 year so we could use it to cover bumps on the road.
Such covering will be especially important if we consider the fact that even if we completely stop emissions, we could also stop global dimming from coal burning which would result in 3 C jump. Stopping emissions may result in temperature jump and we need protection system in this case.
Anyway we need to survive until stronger technologies. Using nanotech or genetic engineering we could solve worming problem with smaller efforts. But we have to survive until with date.
It looks for me that cutting emissions is overhyped and solar management is “underhyped” in public opinion and funding. And by changing with misbalance we could get more common good.
Actually, some of the geoengineering has been tried/studied, the acid in atmo, and the ocean dumped iron.
The iron addition worked quite well, quadrupling the sea catch of fish, and creating a bloom of aquatic algae and plankton. If we can dump in a priming of shell creating plankton, along with the iron, you can pull down quite a bit of ocean CO2, and send it to sea bottom. I think they have only published one sci paper on it, but a couple other papers on econ gains were put out before they raided and arrested the folks that carried it out. The Canandian natives were pretty pleased with the results, tho.
The other easily reversible technique would be solar reflectors in orbit. These could be dual tasked to be solar power satts, to offset some power production. If you sent that power to the most polluting countries grids, they could de-commission some of the worst power plants and cement factories. Studies in progress, models launched to test, lots of theoretical studies under solar sail tech. And the SLS needs something to launch.....
In current political situation in the world cutting emissions can’t be implemented. Point.
It may happening naturally in 20 years after electric transportation will take place.
Plan B should be implemented if situation suddenly change to worse. If temperature jumps 3-5 C in one year. In this case the only option we had is to bomb Pinatubo volcano to make it erupting again.
But if we will have prepared and tested measures of Sun shielding, we could start them if situation will be worsening.
It all looks like political fight between Plan A and Plan B. You suggest not to implement Plan B as it would show real need to implement Plan A (cutting emissions). But the same logic works in the opposite direction. They will not cut emission to press policymakers to implement plan B. ))) It looks like prisoners dilemma of two plans.
That’s one thing. But also, let’s say that we choose Plan B, and this is taken as a sign that reducing emissions is unnecessary and global emissions soar. We then start pumping aerosols into the atmosphere to cool the climate.
Then something happens and this process stops: we face unexpected technical hurdles, or maybe the implementation of this plan has been largely left to a smallish number of nations and they are incapable or unwilling to implement it anymore, perhaps a large-scale war occurs, or something like that. Because of the extra CO2, we’d probably be worse off than if we had even partially succeeded with Plan A. So what’s the expected payoff of choosing A or B?
As I said, I’m a bit wary of this, but I also think that it’s important to research climate engineering technologies and make plans so that they can be implemented if (and probably when) necessary. The best option would probably be a mixture of plans A and B, but as you said, it looks like a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma.
One more thing I would like to add: The management of climate risks depends of their predictability and it seems that it is not very high. Climate is very complex and chaotic system.
It may react unexpectedly on our actions. This means that longterm actions are less favourable. The situation could change many times during their implementation.
The quick actions like solar management are better for management of poor predictable processes, as we could see result of our action and quickly cancel them or make them stronger if we don’t like the results.
I would also advocate for the mixture of both plans.
One more reason for it is that they work on different timescale. Cutting emission and removing CO2 on current level of technologies would takes decades to have an impact on climate. But geo-engineering has reaction time around 1 year so we could use it to cover bumps on the road.
Such covering will be especially important if we consider the fact that even if we completely stop emissions, we could also stop global dimming from coal burning which would result in 3 C jump. Stopping emissions may result in temperature jump and we need protection system in this case.
Anyway we need to survive until stronger technologies. Using nanotech or genetic engineering we could solve worming problem with smaller efforts. But we have to survive until with date.
It looks for me that cutting emissions is overhyped and solar management is “underhyped” in public opinion and funding. And by changing with misbalance we could get more common good.
Actually, some of the geoengineering has been tried/studied, the acid in atmo, and the ocean dumped iron.
The iron addition worked quite well, quadrupling the sea catch of fish, and creating a bloom of aquatic algae and plankton. If we can dump in a priming of shell creating plankton, along with the iron, you can pull down quite a bit of ocean CO2, and send it to sea bottom. I think they have only published one sci paper on it, but a couple other papers on econ gains were put out before they raided and arrested the folks that carried it out. The Canandian natives were pretty pleased with the results, tho.
The other easily reversible technique would be solar reflectors in orbit. These could be dual tasked to be solar power satts, to offset some power production. If you sent that power to the most polluting countries grids, they could de-commission some of the worst power plants and cement factories. Studies in progress, models launched to test, lots of theoretical studies under solar sail tech. And the SLS needs something to launch.....