Atmospheric aerosals are already emitted into the atmosphere in huge quantities and are already cancelling out some of the effects of CO2 buildup. By deliberately increasing these, deliberately adding aerosols intentionally, rather than as a byproduct of combustion. The cost would be pretty affordable, and we could completely eliminate the extra heat retention of our higher CO2 levels.
Obviously there are risks, but it’s not like we haven’t already been adding huge amounts of aerosols to the atmosphere with little negative effect. It’s not a perfect solution, but it sure as hell is better than the alternative.
But people have weird attitudes about it. The same folks who are firmly convinced that climate change has now doomed us all will often oppose atmospheric engineering efforts like this based on vague fears about messing with forces we don’t understand. Obviously any technique will have unintended consequences, but when the alternative is civilization and biosphere collapse, it seems pretty damn silly to be worrying about hypothetical unforeseen consequences.
I do believe that something like what you’re suggesting is going to be necessary to avert the total collapse of civilization as we know it. However, the part that trips many up, including myself, is that what you are proposing is a last ditch effort which should be taken after all other reasonable steps have been taken. I think we’ll get to the point where that discussion is necessary, but first we need to do what we can to limit emissions. If we don’t then we’re just going to give those with the power and influence to make changes an excuse not to.
In short, we can’t even get the world to agree to address the problem in a reasonable timeframe. That step has to be behind us before we start seriously considering geoengineering in pretty much any form.
The effort to prevent climate change pales in comparison to the effort it would take to plan, deliver, and maintain, a controlled aerosol program like that.
The math has been done, I will see if I can find the source. If you’re going to go through that much effort, you may as well just prevent it.
Also, termination shock. There is no free lunch. If the aerosol program ever stops or fails, the rebound effect of the increased solar energy in a now even more CO2 warmed world…every year you’re loading that bomb with more and more explosives.
Everything I’ve seen is the cost would be quite manageable. Sure, you’re talking billions a year. But the figures I’ve seen are that it could be funded by something like a fraction of a penny per gallon of gasoline sales. It would require international cooperation, but it might be as simple as just adding an additive to jet fuel.
Termination shock is a legitimate fear. But again, the cost is relatively cheap. It’s not something we can’t continue to fund even if we have a major depression or a world war.
I couldn’t justify rolling the dice on this if the stakes weren’t so dire. But look at it. We’re literally talking about the near-certainty of complete societal and ecological collapse from climate change. I’ll trade “possible death” for “certain death.” It’s not the perfect solution, but we are well past the point of perfect solutions.
And moreover, it gives us what we really need: TIME. We have a path to a carbon-free future. But a planetary civilization is the slowest of ships to turn. We’re trying to completely revamp the very material foundations of our entire lives. Solutions like atmospheric CO2 removal are not practical with today’s technology. But, in principle, with sufficiently cheap power and good enough automation, meaningful direct air capture should be possible.
For example, by 2050 the world will be pretty awash in solar panels. Project the production curves forward, and we’ll be sitting on a massive abundance of cheap available power. Especially in the summer time, we’ll have access to vast amounts of otherwise wasted power. And if you had really good automation and robotics by then? Maybe then it becomes possible to affordably construct an industrial complex that would rival the current world’s petrochemical complex…all just to take CO2 out of the air. Totally impractical now. But 2050? Or 2100?
Or, in the worst case, you don’t need to sustain this forever. My understanding is that the main mechanism that governs the timing is ocean currents. It would take about a thousand years for ocean currents to move enough water up to the surface and back down to return atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels, but we’re talking a task on the order of centuries, not forever.
A $300/ton carbon tax (with dividend) = $3/gallon tax on gasoline, would be a zero cost solution to global warming. Encourages carbon capture after renewables/H2 economy. There are snowpiercer solutions, but snowpiercer consequences are concerning.
![[discussion] we have officially entered uncharted territory](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/65e15205-88bf-4496-96e2-5e654f0d4724.webp){kind=link}
Atmospheric aerosals are already emitted into the atmosphere in huge quantities and are already cancelling out some of the effects of CO2 buildup. By deliberately increasing these, deliberately adding aerosols intentionally, rather than as a byproduct of combustion. The cost would be pretty affordable, and we could completely eliminate the extra heat retention of our higher CO2 levels.
Obviously there are risks, but it’s not like we haven’t already been adding huge amounts of aerosols to the atmosphere with little negative effect. It’s not a perfect solution, but it sure as hell is better than the alternative.
But people have weird attitudes about it. The same folks who are firmly convinced that climate change has now doomed us all will often oppose atmospheric engineering efforts like this based on vague fears about messing with forces we don’t understand. Obviously any technique will have unintended consequences, but when the alternative is civilization and biosphere collapse, it seems pretty damn silly to be worrying about hypothetical unforeseen consequences.
“Weird attitudes”? “Vague fears”?
Spraying chemicals in the air does nothing to fix ocean acidification, which will collapse marine life, which will make life hell on shore as well.
And will indirectly make the ocean acidifcation problem worse, since people will continue using fossil fuels.
If it even works at all, which is far from certain.
And blocking the sun won’t have any adverse affects on plant life? You know, the primary carbon sink?
I do believe that something like what you’re suggesting is going to be necessary to avert the total collapse of civilization as we know it. However, the part that trips many up, including myself, is that what you are proposing is a last ditch effort which should be taken after all other reasonable steps have been taken. I think we’ll get to the point where that discussion is necessary, but first we need to do what we can to limit emissions. If we don’t then we’re just going to give those with the power and influence to make changes an excuse not to.
In short, we can’t even get the world to agree to address the problem in a reasonable timeframe. That step has to be behind us before we start seriously considering geoengineering in pretty much any form.
The effort to prevent climate change pales in comparison to the effort it would take to plan, deliver, and maintain, a controlled aerosol program like that.
The math has been done, I will see if I can find the source. If you’re going to go through that much effort, you may as well just prevent it.
Also, termination shock. There is no free lunch. If the aerosol program ever stops or fails, the rebound effect of the increased solar energy in a now even more CO2 warmed world…every year you’re loading that bomb with more and more explosives.
Everything I’ve seen is the cost would be quite manageable. Sure, you’re talking billions a year. But the figures I’ve seen are that it could be funded by something like a fraction of a penny per gallon of gasoline sales. It would require international cooperation, but it might be as simple as just adding an additive to jet fuel.
Termination shock is a legitimate fear. But again, the cost is relatively cheap. It’s not something we can’t continue to fund even if we have a major depression or a world war.
I couldn’t justify rolling the dice on this if the stakes weren’t so dire. But look at it. We’re literally talking about the near-certainty of complete societal and ecological collapse from climate change. I’ll trade “possible death” for “certain death.” It’s not the perfect solution, but we are well past the point of perfect solutions.
And moreover, it gives us what we really need: TIME. We have a path to a carbon-free future. But a planetary civilization is the slowest of ships to turn. We’re trying to completely revamp the very material foundations of our entire lives. Solutions like atmospheric CO2 removal are not practical with today’s technology. But, in principle, with sufficiently cheap power and good enough automation, meaningful direct air capture should be possible.
For example, by 2050 the world will be pretty awash in solar panels. Project the production curves forward, and we’ll be sitting on a massive abundance of cheap available power. Especially in the summer time, we’ll have access to vast amounts of otherwise wasted power. And if you had really good automation and robotics by then? Maybe then it becomes possible to affordably construct an industrial complex that would rival the current world’s petrochemical complex…all just to take CO2 out of the air. Totally impractical now. But 2050? Or 2100?
Or, in the worst case, you don’t need to sustain this forever. My understanding is that the main mechanism that governs the timing is ocean currents. It would take about a thousand years for ocean currents to move enough water up to the surface and back down to return atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels, but we’re talking a task on the order of centuries, not forever.
A $300/ton carbon tax (with dividend) = $3/gallon tax on gasoline, would be a zero cost solution to global warming. Encourages carbon capture after renewables/H2 economy. There are snowpiercer solutions, but snowpiercer consequences are concerning.