Not exact matches
If we
worry about insuring ourselves from extreme scenarios, the only realistic way to do so is through
geoengineering.
I was pleased to read in your blog that at least some climate scientists are now
worried enough
about rapid global warming that they encourage investigation of «
geoengineering» ways to cool the earth.
Conservative think tanks that once championed
geoengineering as easier and cheaper than cutting emissions have now all aligned with the view that the human impact on climate is so small that we don't even have to
worry about it.
Andersen: When people
worry about unilateral, undemocratic acts of
geoengineering, they tend to
worry about some consortium of rich countries jamming this through.
Which is to say that when one
worries about what
geoengineering might do, one should also
worry about the opportunity cost that might arise if a well - regulated, just, defensible form of
geoengineering were not on the table.
Morton: What I really
worry about with
geoengineering is that conflict over its use will lead to a greater conflict that leads to a nuclear war.
and what
about the 400 + nuclear reactors worldwide that need workers and constant maintainance to keep them running so they do nt go in to full blown meltdown and make the planet a radioactive wasteland eh + the unstoppable feedback loop of methane release and the earths athmosphere becoming more like venus... the elitists do nt seem so
worried that
geoengineering is destroying their planet too... maybe because they've got the deep underground military bases or hardened bunkers that can sustain them for many years or might the real manipulators not be from the earth itself??
If he's
worried about ice ages, perhaps he should ponder the selfishness of squandering what could have been a useful
geoengineering resource to future generations faced with an imminent glaciation; carefully burning fossil fuels to enhance the greenhouse effect just enough to maintain temperatures in the face of declining northern - hemisphere insolation due to the Milankovich cycles may well be the most cost - effective method for them to do so, if those resources are still around at the time.
In this blog I plan to briefly rebut each of these arguments, and instead make the case that we must properly recognize the social implications of technology, and therefore should already be gravely
worried about the moral hazard effects of
geoengineering.
Many environmentalists call
geoengineering a false solution, ethicists often
worry that it indicates a
worrying hubris
about human domination over nature, and some economists suggest that it would encourage decision makers to take on more climate risk.
Ethicist Stephen Gardiner has suggested a quite different reason for not
worrying about the disincentive effects of
geoengineering research.
[Response: If I were a polar bear, I'd
worry about people puffing up overconfidence in the
geoengineering solution to the point that the last chance at taking steps that might actually have solved the problem are passed over.
Indeed, in the community of scientists and scholars and wonks that thinks
about geoengineering, there is a persistent
worry that some changes in mindset might come terribly quickly: Specifically, they fear that a significant part of the political class, especially in America, might move with Necker - cube instaneity from «climate change does not exist / is not man made and thus is not a problem to address» to «climate change can be easily sorted out by
geoengineering and is not a problem to address any further.»