Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

I definitely don't disagree with you, but if it helps it helps. At this point I think we need to reverse our damage in order to avoid disaster.

But yes, it will also give encourage more pollution unless companies are actually held responsible for their pollution.

The general reasoning is that while it doesn’t help with ocean acidification or a thousand knock on effects, and most certainly doesn’t ‘solve the problem’ as you put it, such measures would blunt most of the most deadly ones, especially for poorer nations that don’t have the resources to abandon coastlines, flood, and drought prone areas.

Especially since even if all artificial co2, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions snapped out of existence tomorrow we’d still see feedback warming for years to come, and centuries to return to where we are today, killing hundreds of millions of people in the meantime.

If they work effectively, which I am admittedly personally highly skeptical of, any of these geoengineering projects could save tens of millions of people for negligible cost long after we’ve hit net zero.

I am however also skeptical that it would significantly encourage companies to pollute more, as that necessitates you to expect them to pollute less if they think millions of people will die at some point in the distant future because of it, and I think basically any graph of fossil fuel useage after we all agreed that it was killing a shit ton of people and had to be eliminated in the 90s pretty well proves that not to be the case.

I also don’t think that needless death and destruction will modivate significant political action, see Covid, it just makes people suffer.

agreed !

Population decline isn't going to happen. The planets doomed. Its just damage mitigation at this point.

https://youtu.be/VW66EX75jIY

What’s the worst that can happen.

I mean, at this point, we're cruising full speed in that direction. Willy-nilly experiments to just throw shit at the wall and see if anything sticks is all we can really count on. We're well passed the point of doing this the easy way.

my perpetual motion train and round the world track are still decades away!!

yeah, because this isn't the right solution...

If this is done on a global scale, there are multiple problems:

• the temperature would get lower artificially, until it isn't maintained. Should we continue business as usual with fossile fuels?
• can it be done everywhere at the same time?
• what is the impact on the water pattern on a global scale?

snow cannon then...

then it would disturb the climate somewhere else...

Taking harm reduction measures in the meantime is absolutely not a waste of time. We cannot be so naive as to think that your suggestions will happen in the short term as each of them require radical changes to the political and social landscape that will take (have been taking) decades.

This is the same waste of time as saying that pain medication for somebody who broke their leg is a waste of time as it doesn't heal the leg.

Of course it doesn't fix the issue, that's not the point. It might buy us precious needed time to stave off total disaster, which I think is a good thing (tm)

I'm sure that governments and large companies will (ab)use this by saying "hey! We got ten years extra so let's return to abusive polluting!", but that's a different issue.

Don't just shit on ideas that help just because they aren't a fix all solution.

Also, your list is a bit short.

Build "15 minute cities" or just look at the Netherlands on how to build cites that were awesome to live whilst never needing a car. Build bicycle roads everywhere, subside the crap out of bicycles, increase taxes on gasoline.

Build good public transportation infrastructure everywhere. High speed lines only for cross country.

Tax air flights like there literally is not tomorrow

Ban private jets and yachts

Ban muscle cars and unnecessary large cars like those stupid SUV and pickups

Push factories to get CO2 neutral. Help and subsidise where and as needed.

Heavily tax farming of crops with extreme water requirements

Get rid of stupid places like Las Vegas that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Plant trees everywhere

Research on how we can get large transport ships emit less crap, maybe even electric, if possible (big question mark there)

Counter point: send a message to alpha centauri and await for salvation in a few years

The ban on cattle is actually much more problematic than it appears. I didn't understand just how problematic until very recently. Our world relies on the animal parts that are "left over" in the butchering process, not to mention the single most prolific and effective source of fertilizer for all of the vegetables that we eat is animal waste and the only method to produce enough of it to feed everyone is genuinely large scale animal farming.

Nuclear doesn't really solve the problem. Yes the energy generation is carbon neutral, the material still has to be produced, refined and transported, which is also quite energy expensive, not to mention the messy matter of material disposal. Further, nuclear does put out a lot of energy, but the ability to output an entire countries energy requirements from 3 plants makes energy security worse, because you have fewer fallbacks in the case of power grid malfunction (CSIRO published a nuclear feasibility study for Australia recently which highlighted this as a major issue with nuclear power). Even if all that works out, it still takes ages to build a nuclear plant, by which point you could have filled the grid with renewable energy and storage and saved a lot of time and money while also meeting energy requirements and reducing cadbon output.