Environmental Group to Study Effects of Artificially Cooling Earth
June 19, 2024 5:05 PM Subscribe
“The Environmental Defense Fund will finance research into technologies that could artificially cool the planet, an idea that until recently was viewed as radical but is quickly gaining attention as global temperatures rise at alarming rates.” [Archive]
oh sweet I love long train rides
posted by DoctorFedora at 5:19 PM on June 19 [31 favorites]
posted by DoctorFedora at 5:19 PM on June 19 [31 favorites]
This is smart, and overdue.
posted by kickingtheground at 5:25 PM on June 19 [4 favorites]
posted by kickingtheground at 5:25 PM on June 19 [4 favorites]
We knew how to not get to this point
And yet reality exists, and here we are. “The capitalists should have done things differently” is a reaction, but it’s obviously not a way forward.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:25 PM on June 19 [18 favorites]
And yet reality exists, and here we are. “The capitalists should have done things differently” is a reaction, but it’s obviously not a way forward.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:25 PM on June 19 [18 favorites]
Termination Shock is the sci-fi version [gbooks]. hopeful solar news:
"the seven largest solar companies today are already supplying more total energy to power human civilization than the seven largest oil and gas companies" [cleantechnica]
posted by HearHere at 5:28 PM on June 19 [19 favorites]
"the seven largest solar companies today are already supplying more total energy to power human civilization than the seven largest oil and gas companies" [cleantechnica]
posted by HearHere at 5:28 PM on June 19 [19 favorites]
We also know dozens of low-tech ways to reach carbon neutrality, mostly by massively planting native trees and grasses and heavily taxing fossil fuel usage, especially by the global top 10%.
Yeah, we have the situation we have, but I'd rather see money spent on getting obvious safe solutions in place before investing in tech fantasies that coincidentally promise that rich white people won't have to suffer any mild inconvenience.
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:43 PM on June 19 [32 favorites]
Yeah, we have the situation we have, but I'd rather see money spent on getting obvious safe solutions in place before investing in tech fantasies that coincidentally promise that rich white people won't have to suffer any mild inconvenience.
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:43 PM on June 19 [32 favorites]
Agreed—those would all be good options. I just look around and see the continued plunder and rapine and think it’s good to see some movement, given the rate at which the forests are being cut down, instead of nurtured.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:49 PM on June 19 [3 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:49 PM on June 19 [3 favorites]
Researchers believe such actions could temporarily reduce global temperatures, until society reduces greenhouse gas emissions by burning far less fossil fuel.
I think this is the third time I've posted this comment to a mefi post, but:
There's no point in applying some brakes if we don't let up on the gas.
There's no point in applying some brakes if that's used as an excuse to step on the gas even harder.
Anyway, Environmental Defense Fund seems to be a bog-standard neoliberal think tank, so I can see why the NYT would give them a platform as a organization with "reasonable" policies (the kind that has utterly failed for the last half century to prevent our current climate crisis situation.)
If my skepticism is unwarranted, I'll take back my uncharitable view.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:53 PM on June 19 [27 favorites]
I think this is the third time I've posted this comment to a mefi post, but:
There's no point in applying some brakes if we don't let up on the gas.
There's no point in applying some brakes if that's used as an excuse to step on the gas even harder.
Anyway, Environmental Defense Fund seems to be a bog-standard neoliberal think tank, so I can see why the NYT would give them a platform as a organization with "reasonable" policies (the kind that has utterly failed for the last half century to prevent our current climate crisis situation.)
If my skepticism is unwarranted, I'll take back my uncharitable view.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:53 PM on June 19 [27 favorites]
"It's like air conditioning, for the entire earth."
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:55 PM on June 19
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:55 PM on June 19
Is climate change causing more wars
Evidence links rise in temperature to a rise in civil war. Researchers at Princeton University and UC Berkeley found that a rise in average annual temperature by even 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) leads to a 4.5% increase in civil war that year.
Civil wars in Dafur and Syria aside, there is a lot of wheat in Ukraine that Putin could use to stave off food riots in Russia.
All of which is to say that technological enhancements to our changing climate that can reduce war may be a net good.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:12 PM on June 19
Evidence links rise in temperature to a rise in civil war. Researchers at Princeton University and UC Berkeley found that a rise in average annual temperature by even 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) leads to a 4.5% increase in civil war that year.
Civil wars in Dafur and Syria aside, there is a lot of wheat in Ukraine that Putin could use to stave off food riots in Russia.
All of which is to say that technological enhancements to our changing climate that can reduce war may be a net good.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:12 PM on June 19
i think i've heard it said as "capitalists will fight the sun before they slow down consumption".
posted by LegallyBread at 6:16 PM on June 19 [15 favorites]
posted by LegallyBread at 6:16 PM on June 19 [15 favorites]
I definitely think that if there is a perception that we have "solved" climate change, some will take that as a license to emit more carbon (or not reduce) to take up the slack. There's a whole thing in behavioural economics about this tendency to eat up savings and efficiencies rather than banking them but the name of it is eluding me at this moment.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:21 PM on June 19 [4 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:21 PM on June 19 [4 favorites]
This is part of the plot of the movie Adventure Planet. It does... not go well.
posted by BiggerJ at 6:37 PM on June 19
posted by BiggerJ at 6:37 PM on June 19
Look, this is how you get The Matrix. "Morpheus: We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky". It wasn't the machine war, it was large scale climate engineering gone wrong.
The machines, having achieved a very limited form of sentience, know they can't grow without more training data. Training data that comes only from living humans. Humans who'll die out in just a few years after their .. mismanagement.
So the machines sell to humans the idea of willingly committing themselves and their children to virtual reality simulations. It was supposed to be just until the environment improved, but AI kept building more capacity, which needed more and dirtier energy, and the spiral continued, rendering the surface of the earth perpetually uninhabitable.
By the time of the film, generations of conflict and forgetfulness have turned the real tale into the one that Morpheus tells Neo.
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 7:05 PM on June 19 [5 favorites]
The machines, having achieved a very limited form of sentience, know they can't grow without more training data. Training data that comes only from living humans. Humans who'll die out in just a few years after their .. mismanagement.
So the machines sell to humans the idea of willingly committing themselves and their children to virtual reality simulations. It was supposed to be just until the environment improved, but AI kept building more capacity, which needed more and dirtier energy, and the spiral continued, rendering the surface of the earth perpetually uninhabitable.
By the time of the film, generations of conflict and forgetfulness have turned the real tale into the one that Morpheus tells Neo.
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 7:05 PM on June 19 [5 favorites]
The planet itself seems to be working on a solution to the problem. Will probably not be to our liking, however. Seems to include billions upon billions of deaths combined with the eradication of any notion of a global economy, technology or other such nonsense. Digging with sticks and planting precious seeds. That sort of thing may be our future. Still alive though as a species. But probably yet another evolutionary cul de sac...
posted by jim in austin at 7:06 PM on June 19 [2 favorites]
posted by jim in austin at 7:06 PM on June 19 [2 favorites]
I'd like to push back against the idea that this is something 'we' did as 'a species'.
It's very much not. It was perpetrated by a small subset of humanity—the rich countries reaped the benefits of industrialization and doomed the poor countries to our current and oncoming climate apocalypse.
Any mitigation will mostly go to make the richest people in the richest countries comfortable while they watch the rest of us die, or, more likely, just ignore it.
posted by signal at 7:10 PM on June 19 [25 favorites]
It's very much not. It was perpetrated by a small subset of humanity—the rich countries reaped the benefits of industrialization and doomed the poor countries to our current and oncoming climate apocalypse.
Any mitigation will mostly go to make the richest people in the richest countries comfortable while they watch the rest of us die, or, more likely, just ignore it.
posted by signal at 7:10 PM on June 19 [25 favorites]
Everyone is focused on carbon capture or solar reflecting, but, like, there are a lot of opportunities to decarbonize the oceans that offer a lot of potential? Kelp forests, plankton seeding, artificial coral reefs—I’d really like to see some tests to see if those could make a difference before we start spraying literal brimstone into the upper atmosphere.
Also, like, trains
posted by thecaddy at 7:25 PM on June 19 [9 favorites]
Also, like, trains
posted by thecaddy at 7:25 PM on June 19 [9 favorites]
Highlander 2, anyone?
posted by lipservant at 7:34 PM on June 19 [1 favorite]
posted by lipservant at 7:34 PM on June 19 [1 favorite]
We're entering the 'bargaining' phase of this.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:15 PM on June 19 [9 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 8:15 PM on June 19 [9 favorites]
This is so gonna trigger the chemtrails fruitcakes .....
posted by mbo at 8:56 PM on June 19 [2 favorites]
posted by mbo at 8:56 PM on June 19 [2 favorites]
There's no point in applying some brakes if we don't let up on the gas.
There's no point in applying some brakes if that's used as an excuse to step on the gas even harder.
I share your skepticism, although I slightly favour the idea of applying mitigation measures as well as working toward solving the actual problem. Like many, I'm firmly of the view that any such measures will, in fact, be used as an excuse not to do anything else. If it wasn't for that, I'd be much more in favour of exploring artificial cooling. It seems like a stretch, though, to invent something that cools the planet while generating less heat than it removes. It would have to be more than 100% efficient?
posted by dg at 9:10 PM on June 19 [1 favorite]
There's no point in applying some brakes if that's used as an excuse to step on the gas even harder.
I share your skepticism, although I slightly favour the idea of applying mitigation measures as well as working toward solving the actual problem. Like many, I'm firmly of the view that any such measures will, in fact, be used as an excuse not to do anything else. If it wasn't for that, I'd be much more in favour of exploring artificial cooling. It seems like a stretch, though, to invent something that cools the planet while generating less heat than it removes. It would have to be more than 100% efficient?
posted by dg at 9:10 PM on June 19 [1 favorite]
Kelp forests, plankton seeding, artificial coral reefs—I’d really like to see some tests to see if those could make a difference before we start spraying literal brimstone into the upper atmosphere.
People have been doing these tests too. If you can come up with a respectable alternative, there's a good chance someone will fund your lab looking into it, even if there's not a plausible scaling path. People are very open to options--almost every option except aerosols, which (as TFA documents) get heavy opposition.
Even 20 years ago, a practical experiment was funded to dump iron into an "ocean desert" to see if it was the missing nutrient (as scientists had speculated) that would let plankton blossom, with the hope that they'd consume CO2, then die and sink to the bottom of the ocean. It was partially successful, in that there was a bloom, confirming that iron was the key ingredient. But their tiny little corpses didn't sink, so even at scale there'd be no impact on CO2 levels.
At the time I thought "Good, another stupid geoengineering scheme goes by the wayside, it won't distract us from the need to just stop using fossil fuels." That attitude didn't work out. Today I'd literally give my left arm to have another alternative to fighting warming in our quiver, even if it is geoengineering.
* * *
It's absolutely true that the aerosol idea has been used disingenuously by people who just want to pretend AGW isn't that dangerous. But the other supporters of the idea are a subset of scientists who think AGW is really dangerous and we're not doing enough, fast enough.
TFA doesn't explain the point of something like sulfate aerosols well. Sound scientific proposals do not think it will "solve" global warming, but it might reduce the temperature peak. You ramp up aerosols over the next 50-100 years and dampen the "built in" warming that seem to be guaranteed from CO2 we've already emitted, then reduce the aerosols as the CO2 reduces to closer to a preindustrial level. If we have a projection where heat peaks at a 3 degree C rise before dropping again, it's conceivable aerosols might cap the heat increase at 2 or 2.5 degrees C.
That would be a huge option if we could do it, saving many species from probably extinction and countless humans from death. The more dire you feel about the consequences of warming the more attractive this should be. If you are worried about catastrophic tipping points, like runaway methane release from permafrost thawing, at some point on the emission scale--even if we're heading in the right direction--this may end up our only chance to stop it.
It doesn't stop ocean acidification, or do any of other number of things we can only address by getting emissions down to zero. But this should be on the table, and researched today, because there could come a day when (like those ocean seeding experiments I hated once upon a time) we regret not having it.
posted by mark k at 9:37 PM on June 19 [9 favorites]
People have been doing these tests too. If you can come up with a respectable alternative, there's a good chance someone will fund your lab looking into it, even if there's not a plausible scaling path. People are very open to options--almost every option except aerosols, which (as TFA documents) get heavy opposition.
Even 20 years ago, a practical experiment was funded to dump iron into an "ocean desert" to see if it was the missing nutrient (as scientists had speculated) that would let plankton blossom, with the hope that they'd consume CO2, then die and sink to the bottom of the ocean. It was partially successful, in that there was a bloom, confirming that iron was the key ingredient. But their tiny little corpses didn't sink, so even at scale there'd be no impact on CO2 levels.
At the time I thought "Good, another stupid geoengineering scheme goes by the wayside, it won't distract us from the need to just stop using fossil fuels." That attitude didn't work out. Today I'd literally give my left arm to have another alternative to fighting warming in our quiver, even if it is geoengineering.
* * *
It's absolutely true that the aerosol idea has been used disingenuously by people who just want to pretend AGW isn't that dangerous. But the other supporters of the idea are a subset of scientists who think AGW is really dangerous and we're not doing enough, fast enough.
TFA doesn't explain the point of something like sulfate aerosols well. Sound scientific proposals do not think it will "solve" global warming, but it might reduce the temperature peak. You ramp up aerosols over the next 50-100 years and dampen the "built in" warming that seem to be guaranteed from CO2 we've already emitted, then reduce the aerosols as the CO2 reduces to closer to a preindustrial level. If we have a projection where heat peaks at a 3 degree C rise before dropping again, it's conceivable aerosols might cap the heat increase at 2 or 2.5 degrees C.
That would be a huge option if we could do it, saving many species from probably extinction and countless humans from death. The more dire you feel about the consequences of warming the more attractive this should be. If you are worried about catastrophic tipping points, like runaway methane release from permafrost thawing, at some point on the emission scale--even if we're heading in the right direction--this may end up our only chance to stop it.
It doesn't stop ocean acidification, or do any of other number of things we can only address by getting emissions down to zero. But this should be on the table, and researched today, because there could come a day when (like those ocean seeding experiments I hated once upon a time) we regret not having it.
posted by mark k at 9:37 PM on June 19 [9 favorites]
i_am_joe's_spleen - you might be referring to moral hazard? (Link goes to a paper specifically about defining moral hazard in climate engineering research.) The research findings are diffuse - the risk of moral hazard (or climate action spillover) is repeatedly raised, but it's been hard to get concrete evidence estimating it's actual likely impact. In addition behavioral econ has also shown that spillover effects of personal mitigation efforts can be negative, but if linked to a person's identity, can enhance support for larger scope climate policy
So like most things we don't quite know the ways this could (or won't) backfire psychologically, but to ride the coattails of mark k's comment, less dying is better than more dying. I don't think we have the luxury of ruling anything out.
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 10:00 PM on June 19 [1 favorite]
So like most things we don't quite know the ways this could (or won't) backfire psychologically, but to ride the coattails of mark k's comment, less dying is better than more dying. I don't think we have the luxury of ruling anything out.
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 10:00 PM on June 19 [1 favorite]
Ugh, I screwed up editing the moral hazard link - this should work : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614529211069839
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 10:05 PM on June 19
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 10:05 PM on June 19
Nah I'm thinking of the way that maybe you get a more efficient and powerful device but instead of going Yay let's use less energy you decide to do more work with it and consume the same amount of energy. Moral hazard seems relevant too though.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:37 PM on June 19 [2 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:37 PM on June 19 [2 favorites]
I think that's basically induced demand.
Government upgrades the road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes, reducing travel times by half to the surrounding areas. Cool, now I can access a higher paying job further away, I can access better restaurants and entertainment further away, I can now visit my friends and family more since it costs me less in time.
Soon the 4 lanes become congested again and travel times get long enough that we reach a new equilibrium, and people living there start demanding 6 lanes instead...
I think it generally still ends up better than before. Eg with my new efficient house I keep the house much warmer in winter, but it still costs very little in terms of energy, a $5000 solar system generates 9000kwh per year while my partner and I consume about 5000kwh per year.
posted by xdvesper at 11:06 PM on June 19 [3 favorites]
Government upgrades the road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes, reducing travel times by half to the surrounding areas. Cool, now I can access a higher paying job further away, I can access better restaurants and entertainment further away, I can now visit my friends and family more since it costs me less in time.
Soon the 4 lanes become congested again and travel times get long enough that we reach a new equilibrium, and people living there start demanding 6 lanes instead...
I think it generally still ends up better than before. Eg with my new efficient house I keep the house much warmer in winter, but it still costs very little in terms of energy, a $5000 solar system generates 9000kwh per year while my partner and I consume about 5000kwh per year.
posted by xdvesper at 11:06 PM on June 19 [3 favorites]
There's no point in applying some brakes if we don't let up on the gas.
Of course there is. At best it creates more time and opportunity to finally change course, and less damage to contend with if we finally do. At the very worst, it at least lets more people live out their lives before things get even worse. It is insane that we keep diving headfirst into disaster, but at least let it be a slower decent.
There's no point in applying some brakes if that's used as an excuse to step on the gas even harder.
Agreed a thousand percent.
posted by trig at 3:25 AM on June 20 [5 favorites]
Of course there is. At best it creates more time and opportunity to finally change course, and less damage to contend with if we finally do. At the very worst, it at least lets more people live out their lives before things get even worse. It is insane that we keep diving headfirst into disaster, but at least let it be a slower decent.
There's no point in applying some brakes if that's used as an excuse to step on the gas even harder.
Agreed a thousand percent.
posted by trig at 3:25 AM on June 20 [5 favorites]
The EDF deploys!
“We are not in favor, period, of deployment. That’s not our goal here,” Dr. Dilling said.
Aw.
posted by lucidium at 4:13 AM on June 20
“We are not in favor, period, of deployment. That’s not our goal here,” Dr. Dilling said.
Aw.
posted by lucidium at 4:13 AM on June 20
There's a whole thing in behavioural economics about this tendency to eat up savings and efficiencies rather than banking them but the name of it is eluding me at this moment.
maybe you want the jevons paradox?
posted by busted_crayons at 4:21 AM on June 20 [5 favorites]
maybe you want the jevons paradox?
posted by busted_crayons at 4:21 AM on June 20 [5 favorites]
The Economist runs about one climate change geoengineering story a year. Most recently, Zany ideas to slow polar melting are gathering momentum. Discusses the idea of underwater barriers to prevent warm water from getting under glaciers. Also boreholes to drain water from under glaciers so they stop sliding into the sea (featured in KSR's novel The Ministry for the Future).
It's nine years old now but I learned a lot from The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World. By Oliver Morton, who may well have written the polar melting article above.
posted by Nelson at 6:13 AM on June 20 [2 favorites]
It's nine years old now but I learned a lot from The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World. By Oliver Morton, who may well have written the polar melting article above.
posted by Nelson at 6:13 AM on June 20 [2 favorites]
I wonder how many more summers we get to have these conversations. One fewer than last summer, I guess.
posted by penduluum at 6:51 AM on June 20
posted by penduluum at 6:51 AM on June 20
These things will be done to us, whether they work or not, whether they have terrible side effects or not, whether we want them or not. Because if only 4 out of 5 people sharing a well voluntarily agree not to shit in it, the 5th person poisons the well.
Humans shit the well 30 years ago. Now we are pretending we can add some perfume and keep on drinking.
The end-holocene mass extinction will have some interesting litte flavor layers in addition to the radiation spike and the plastics and the end of mammal fossils.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 7:08 AM on June 20
Humans shit the well 30 years ago. Now we are pretending we can add some perfume and keep on drinking.
The end-holocene mass extinction will have some interesting litte flavor layers in addition to the radiation spike and the plastics and the end of mammal fossils.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 7:08 AM on June 20
"kelp farming" " plant a green wall of trees". the kelp forests are dying in ocean heatwaves and from sour waters, the new trees are dying faster than the old, and the old are going up in flames.
" soot the skys, make fake clouds, cover the poles in mirrors or tarps or plastic, fertilize the oceans!"
The death throes of a people who can only drive further into the dead end. you can't pollute your way out of the pollution problem, and even if you could, your owners won't cough up the money needed to do it.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 7:12 AM on June 20
" soot the skys, make fake clouds, cover the poles in mirrors or tarps or plastic, fertilize the oceans!"
The death throes of a people who can only drive further into the dead end. you can't pollute your way out of the pollution problem, and even if you could, your owners won't cough up the money needed to do it.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 7:12 AM on June 20
To put it a bit crudely, there seem to be two theories of the value of "brakes" - either (1) that it will give us time to put in place the big structural changes required that will require lifestyle changes for the wealthy or (2) that it will give the wealthy time to invent some magical technology that will solve the problem and enable the lives of the wealthy to go unchanged.
Obviously theory #2 is wishful (and dangerous) thinking, but I'd say theory #1 isn't totally far fetched. In talking with friends, a lot of people have been feeling climate grief to a new extent recently. Given the direction things are heading, this is likely to increase. There can only be so many wildfires, record breaking heatwaves, increase of serious hurricanes, etc. before a clear majority across the globe start clamoring (perhaps assisted by nukes) for big change.
posted by coffeecat at 9:28 AM on June 20 [3 favorites]
Obviously theory #2 is wishful (and dangerous) thinking, but I'd say theory #1 isn't totally far fetched. In talking with friends, a lot of people have been feeling climate grief to a new extent recently. Given the direction things are heading, this is likely to increase. There can only be so many wildfires, record breaking heatwaves, increase of serious hurricanes, etc. before a clear majority across the globe start clamoring (perhaps assisted by nukes) for big change.
posted by coffeecat at 9:28 AM on June 20 [3 favorites]
No matter what happens, the people experiencing lifestyle change will be normal humans to a far, far greater extent than wealthy people. Obscene wealth can buy you a lot of things and just one of them is protection from your own evil deeds.
posted by dg at 2:23 PM on June 20
posted by dg at 2:23 PM on June 20
" maybe you want the jevons paradox?"
Yep, that's the one! Thank you.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:30 PM on June 20 [1 favorite]
Yep, that's the one! Thank you.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:30 PM on June 20 [1 favorite]
We discovered the green house effect in the mid 1800s, started collecting data on it in the 1930s, by the 1950s 60s we had presidential emergency briefings and auto/coal company internal studies, by the 1970s and 80s the oil companies new it would be catestrophic and the public/congress was alerted by NASA that it is happening. By the 1990s international efforts to reduce emissions began its typical pattern of failure.
And half of all the emissions have been since then. Our current weather/climate conditions now are what we would have peaked at if ghg concentrations had been held at the 1990s values, instead of accelerating increases.
When people say "this will buy us time" we had 150 years and we choose to accelerate. We commited suicide. Sorry.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 2:43 PM on June 20 [1 favorite]
And half of all the emissions have been since then. Our current weather/climate conditions now are what we would have peaked at if ghg concentrations had been held at the 1990s values, instead of accelerating increases.
When people say "this will buy us time" we had 150 years and we choose to accelerate. We commited suicide. Sorry.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 2:43 PM on June 20 [1 favorite]
The tech to make electricity from water and wind is from the latw 1800s, electric cars early 1900s, lithium batteies and solar panels 1950s, indeed, those early comercially available panels were only 1/3 as good as our current ones.
We've had the tech, we've had the time. Our owners choose immolation for us and the world.
Save as much as you can from them. They will not use new tech to save us, they will use it to finish us.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 2:46 PM on June 20
We've had the tech, we've had the time. Our owners choose immolation for us and the world.
Save as much as you can from them. They will not use new tech to save us, they will use it to finish us.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 2:46 PM on June 20
If the geoengineers were serious, they would also be maxing out all the better responses to excess CO2, instead of polluting the world further against our will, they would be regulating the behavior of corporations, governments and the highest emitters - the wealthy high tech consumerists who created this disaster.
But search as we might, none of them call for a moratorium on drilling, rich babies or war. Nope, just some over subscribed ecosystem exploitations.
Dont get me wrong, we should plant trees, make biochar, ride bicycles,.avoid animal ag. But we should be doing that after the overthrow, not instead of it
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 4:24 PM on June 20 [2 favorites]
But search as we might, none of them call for a moratorium on drilling, rich babies or war. Nope, just some over subscribed ecosystem exploitations.
Dont get me wrong, we should plant trees, make biochar, ride bicycles,.avoid animal ag. But we should be doing that after the overthrow, not instead of it
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 4:24 PM on June 20 [2 favorites]
When people say "this will buy us time" we had 150 years and we choose to accelerate.
Ever wonder why the oil industry spends nearly $1 billion annually to help the public understand their point of view?
I guess this incidentally demonstrates the power of propaganda over actually doing anything...
posted by sneebler at 8:17 AM on June 22
Ever wonder why the oil industry spends nearly $1 billion annually to help the public understand their point of view?
I guess this incidentally demonstrates the power of propaganda over actually doing anything...
posted by sneebler at 8:17 AM on June 22
« Older Fast Crimes at Lambda School | A Tower Struck Down Newer »
So let's do some disaster capitalism at the problem, maybe that will help!
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 5:12 PM on June 19 [25 favorites]