(Spoiler Alert) It happens in "The Ministry for the Future" (novel by Kim Stanley Robinson). IIRC, it was a unilateral decision. For some odd reason, I'm having a hard time thinking of good governance, at the moment.
Great discussion. Very logical breakdown of the problem. I respect an NGO that understands that a successful outcome could involve putting themselves out of business. But repeated blithe references to deployment of CDR at scale and the idea that "we all care about decarbonization" are hopelessly naive. I do not, for example, see a North American government that is not still feverishly trying to expand fossil fuel industry. Scientifically, I see a very big challenge ultimately proving this strategy: If particulates are added in a such a way as to cause tenths of a degree reduction over a period of a decade, concurrent with planet warming, how do you prove a change is caused by the particulates and not just a random fluctuation? It's not like we have a separate planet to use as our negative control. Think how hard it was to convince people that CO2 was causing planet warming because temperature change is so gradual.
Unfortunately yes we probably need to. The numbers of accelerated temp increases, the actual not fast enough reduction in human emissions and the feed back loops of emissions from all sorts of places around the world from methane hydrides to the arctic mean we have to plan for this.
Not that I necessarily support the idea of blocking, but the argument for doing it is that even if we stopped all burning of fossil fuels tomorrow, most of that excess CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, and no really scalable carbon sequestration programs have gotten anywhere.
I consider myself pro-nuclear, but it's just so damn expensive; with wind/solar/battery so much cheaper and dropping faster. I see it being implemented mostly at higher latitudes where solar is less effective.
Absolutely not
(Spoiler Alert) It happens in "The Ministry for the Future" (novel by Kim Stanley Robinson). IIRC, it was a unilateral decision. For some odd reason, I'm having a hard time thinking of good governance, at the moment.
Great discussion. Very logical breakdown of the problem. I respect an NGO that understands that a successful outcome could involve putting themselves out of business. But repeated blithe references to deployment of CDR at scale and the idea that "we all care about decarbonization" are hopelessly naive. I do not, for example, see a North American government that is not still feverishly trying to expand fossil fuel industry. Scientifically, I see a very big challenge ultimately proving this strategy: If particulates are added in a such a way as to cause tenths of a degree reduction over a period of a decade, concurrent with planet warming, how do you prove a change is caused by the particulates and not just a random fluctuation? It's not like we have a separate planet to use as our negative control. Think how hard it was to convince people that CO2 was causing planet warming because temperature change is so gradual.
Unfortunately yes we probably need to. The numbers of accelerated temp increases, the actual not fast enough reduction in human emissions and the feed back loops of emissions from all sorts of places around the world from methane hydrides to the arctic mean we have to plan for this.
seriously? blocking sunlight? why not reduce fossil fuel use instead? go Nuclear
Not that I necessarily support the idea of blocking, but the argument for doing it is that even if we stopped all burning of fossil fuels tomorrow, most of that excess CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, and no really scalable carbon sequestration programs have gotten anywhere.
And nuclear deployment, rather than wind/battery/solar, would also add decades to fossil fuel reduction.
I consider myself pro-nuclear, but it's just so damn expensive; with wind/solar/battery so much cheaper and dropping faster. I see it being implemented mostly at higher latitudes where solar is less effective.
Nuclear is also much slower to deploy.