I've been sad to learn some western climate activists have started pushing geoengineering. This is bad idea for many reasons, but the biggest is that it's politically unwise. Advocating for a techno-fix will inevitably weaken demands for a system change.
The four main arguments outlined in there are absolutely true!
But in order to survive we might need some solutions that will be classified under "geoengineering". I don't wanna be doomy but the numbers are so tight. We need to undo 150 years of 💨💨💨.
I believe we need all three pillars:
1. Cut down on consumtion
2. Alternate sources of energy
3. Geoengineering (although not the most crappy kinds like sulphur powder, but maybe large scale capture or albedo, I don't wanna close the toolbox on this stuff.)
I don't think one or two these pillars are enough. Geoengineering alone isn't enough. And a lot of people here in Swe/EU are laboring under the illusion that alt sources of energy is enough.
We def need to cut the heck down. That is so underdiscussed.
But the existance of the field of geoengineering is part of what gives me hope.
If we get runaway climate loops it's bye bye humanity (and maybe all of chordata). Planet Venus style.
System change is great, I hate capitalism too, but I don't wanna have the most fair econ on the cinder. Humanity needs to also live.
Don't Look Up spoilers
Holding out for system change in connection to climate mitigation is sort of like in Don't Look Up when they wanna save the comet to make phones out of it except from our own left wing. It's, uh, the situation is a li'l more dire than a lot of reporting conveys.
Don't get me wrong, most of the "hold on, let me just" re climate mitigation is coming from capitalists and that is absolutely wrong and evil. ALEC and TPPF are pure evil. The fuel companies who worked for decades spreading denialism even though they knew are evil.
Don't Look Up spoilers
@Sandra There are two different discussions here.
I'm not opposed to geoengineering research: the larger our body of knowledge on Earth breakdown and its mitigations, the better. This will allow us to make informed decisions in the future on what needs to be done.
What I am opposed to is climate activists in 2022 losing focus on what's a necessity – system change – and what might be needed in addition to it. And geoengineering is a politically weaponized tactic of delay.
re: Don't Look Up spoilers
To be specific, then, I do not co-sign the sentiment "the biggest [reason to not push geoengineering] is that it's politically unwise. Advocating for a techno-fix will inevitably weaken demands for a system change."
It's messed up that a lot of capture tech is in conjunction with burning more litho, or re-burning already burnet litho. But I believe we need capture ior some sort of athmo miti / cleanup. Capture and storage, some sort of NET, I support.
I've been pouring $$$$ into collecting freons and other high-CO2e gasses.
Not to compensate for anything else (i.e. I haven't been eating meat, flying, driving, or voting right wing), but just for its own sake.
And if it's true thar we capital-N Need geoengineering, the politics are moot. I love and support agroecology (my first job out of high school was in that field, for a UN project) but I believe it's not enough.
Can I be wrong about that? I sure as heckfire hope my take is wrong! That if we agro-eco leftists win and implement our solution, it's gonna be in time and it's gonna be enough. The more ways we have out of this mess, the better. But to convince me about that is not gonna be easy. Our athmo has a CO2e ppm "debt" that's historically unheard of. We're talking RIP T-Rex levels 💔
But combining an agro-eco shift with serious capture? Then maybe yes! ♥
@Sandra @ttiurani
To my mind the problem with geoengineering is that our simulation models for the world are not accurate enough. They will not show us all higher-order effects, and we've seen from the past that that is a recipe for disaster.
For example large-scale CO2 capture sounds great if we could do it really soon, but by necessity it will be non-uniform. We don't know what the effect of this non-uniformity would be on e.g. the weather systems or ocean currents. So my view is that we should first have better models, then we will know what we're doing. Better models is mostly a matter of resolution, but also integration of atmospheric chemistry into climate models.
@Sandra @wim_v12e There are many different discussions to be had about geoengineering.
In this discussion I wanted to highlight one of them: what are the goals and theory of change for climate activism, and what is the best strategy to make that happen. Geoengineering should not be part of that strategy.
"what are the goals and theory of change for climate activism, and what is the best strategy to make that happen. Geoengineering should not be part of that strategy."
I didn't mean to come across as if that wasn' clear, I should've acked that more explicitly.
I just disagree. From the premises I'm working with, geoengineering should be part of (one of the three pillars of) what activists push for.
@wim_v12e
@Sandra @wim_v12e @ttiurani I’m a complete n00b (green? 😉) on the technical aspects of geoengineering, so my opinion is likely to be much less informed than yours.
From what I’ve read, we’re nowhere near a workable solution and even if we were, it’s a band-aid on a gaping wound.
I still think we need to push hard for degrowth and reducing the energy footprint. It feels like this could realistically get done if not for the perverted financial incentives that are in the way.
@Sandra @wim_v12e Yes, disagree we do.
One more reason why I think your three pillar strategy is unwise: the message then becomes "uproot the system, but also in the meantime build megastructures".
Answer to that will be "let's pause the uprooting and let me come back to you on the megastructures".
That is: having strong counter-hegemony demands and at the same time pleading for hegemony to expand its control over yet more nature with megascale tech, is not political force well used.
Not competely sure if I understood right but:
"if big structures will get it done, I'll take it."
If by "it" you mean anything related to stopping Earth breakdown, then that's just completely mistaken. Just recently the sixth out of nine planetary boundaries was measured to be crossed, and geoengineering is mostly fixing CO2 at the expense of other boundaries.
There is absolute no victory in geoengineering without a system change.
I believe that we might literally-not-figuratively actually need geoengineering. I hope we won't, but I believe that.
It's not that I choose to believe that for some political POV or because I love big brother. It's that I fear that without it we might die along with all the zebras and donkeys and stuff.
So as long as I believe that, a lot of other lines of argument are gonna be super moot.
So people who wanna change my mind, go after that belief because everything else is predicated on that. I don't wanna be the most means-of-production–controlling worker on the cinder.
@ttiurani
@ttiurani