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.

https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/reasons-to-oppose/

@ttiurani

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.

@ttiurani I forgot to add that the way to convince me out of my pro-geoengineering stance is not gonna be political (because that's already a wide-open door), it's gonna have to be by changing my mind into thinking that cutting consumtion and getting alt energy is gonna be enough and to do that is gonna require numbers and research and maybe not even then.

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.

@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.

@ttiurani

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.

@ttiurani

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.