Main Page Contact Register Log In


So I would favor gearing up for climatological engineering projects like pumping artificial volcanic gasses into the upper atmosphere in case strong measures are needed.

I think that climatologists do not yet understand how the climate works well enough to predict the long-term outcome of such projects. But even if they could propose a reliable technological fix, I suspect that it would be opposed by an even larger majority of voters. A large part of the environmental movement views the GW as a moral problem whose roots are in corporate greed and consumerist attitudes of the general society. The solution therefore must involve repentance, penance and ultimately drastic reforms. Trying to bypass these stages with a cheap technological fix would feel like a poor attempt at cheating.






I think its fairly clear that volcanic eruptions have cause global cooling in the past and I'd give us a 50/50 change of being able to replicate the phenomenon well enough to repeat the effects.

I do agree that a lot of GW activists have gotten the practical problem all mixed up with imposes to moralistic legalism, mystical emotions rations to "nature" in a spiritual since and the like. This is a significant part of their unwavering focus on reducing carbon emissions. (The irritation this produces in everyone else may also be a minor contribution factor to why they are not going to get significantly reduced carbon emissions.)

But reducing carbon emissions requires practically everyone to coordinate major and painful changes n behavior and sustain them over long periods. One of the benefits of simulating a volcanic eruption is that any one of a number of industrialized countries do this on their own, without requiring positive action from their general citizenry, and probably for an amount that would be hardly more than poker change for the US federal budget. Of course the leaders of those industrial nations would not be eager to do it without the support of a majority of their citizens, which is somewhat good because of the danger of over correction. I'd only give it a 20% to 30% chance the GW is going to be a big enough effect that we shouldn't just live with it rather than poke at something we don't fully understand.
68%
aliad
stars0
Replies (0)