To roll it out to the levels needed would be far more difficult and expensive that converting our entire way of life to renewables
The cost of geoengineering solutions has been estimated to be less than $5b/yr, which includes R&D. In other words, this is something that the government of New York City (annual budget: >$100b) could easily do alone without any international support, even in the face of significant opposition.
In contrast, ending fossil fuel use requires significant international cooperation and is regularly stymied by opposing interests. NYC obviously cannot do it by itself.
So from a pragmatic perspective, geoengineering is definitely the easiest solution. In fact IMO the lack of progress on emission reduction makes it inevitable, at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.
at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.
Yeah, I could see that happening. Maybe even the US. Maybe Elon Musk reads a Twitter thread about geoengineering, decides it’s the solution to warming, starts a company called GeoX and convinces Trump and the Republicans to give him and GeoX $5 billion a year, he buys a bunch of jets, fills them with sulfur dioxide and has them fart out a bunch of it around the Arctic every year. GeoX stocks soar, Musk becomes the first trillionaire, and the US federal government has added only a trivial amount to its already vast debt total. It almost doesn’t matter if it works or not.
The cost of geoengineering solutions has been estimated to be
A thought experiment on developing a and maintaining an aircraft fleet to inject dust into the stratosphere. Assuming global cooperation. Assuming that solution works. Assuming you can scale up the dust production without driving up cost. Assuming there are no side effects. Assuming variations in weather don’t trigger war now that there’s someone to blame. Assuming it doesn’t disrupt our food production. Assuming it doesn’t lead to additional extinction events. Assuming -0.3°c over 25 years is enough
The cost of geoengineering solutions has been estimated to be less than $5b/yr, which includes R&D. In other words, this is something that the government of New York City (annual budget: >$100b) could easily do alone without any international support, even in the face of significant opposition.
In contrast, ending fossil fuel use requires significant international cooperation and is regularly stymied by opposing interests. NYC obviously cannot do it by itself.
So from a pragmatic perspective, geoengineering is definitely the easiest solution. In fact IMO the lack of progress on emission reduction makes it inevitable, at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.
Yeah, I could see that happening. Maybe even the US. Maybe Elon Musk reads a Twitter thread about geoengineering, decides it’s the solution to warming, starts a company called GeoX and convinces Trump and the Republicans to give him and GeoX $5 billion a year, he buys a bunch of jets, fills them with sulfur dioxide and has them fart out a bunch of it around the Arctic every year. GeoX stocks soar, Musk becomes the first trillionaire, and the US federal government has added only a trivial amount to its already vast debt total. It almost doesn’t matter if it works or not.
A thought experiment on developing a and maintaining an aircraft fleet to inject dust into the stratosphere. Assuming global cooperation. Assuming that solution works. Assuming you can scale up the dust production without driving up cost. Assuming there are no side effects. Assuming variations in weather don’t trigger war now that there’s someone to blame. Assuming it doesn’t disrupt our food production. Assuming it doesn’t lead to additional extinction events. Assuming -0.3°c over 25 years is enough
Every proposal regarding climate change involves numerous assumptions.