Climate Change

Because the consequences of geoengineering are unknown.

Also.

The thermohaline circulation takes 1000 years to complete a single course. Meaning changes we make to the climate NOW will continue to effect the world 1000 YEARS IN THE FUTURE. Even if we can undo the superficial damage we cause the climate through geoengineering some future time to come we won't have changed the problems we've caused ourselves generations to come.

The simplest solution is to stop using fossil fuels.

But it's not simple, shitface.

It is simple, simpleton. Just not easy.

It is simple compared to geoengineering.

Yeah, let's go ahead and eliminate decades of infrastructural and economic development for mostly unproven technology. Because humanity deals so well with the stark circumstances of poverty, isolation, famine, and disease.

>The simplest solution is to stop using fossil fuels.
Except that will never happen. The biggest prioty is clearing the oceans from heavy metals, since this will affect our production capacity of food.

>Yeah, let's go ahead and eliminate decades of infrastructural and economic development for mostly unproven technology.
No-one is suggesting we just turn off the wells and powerplants overnight, then call a meeting to figure out what to do next. Replacing all that infrastructure is going to take years, probably decades. That's why it's important we start now.

>Because humanity deals so well with the stark circumstances of poverty, isolation, famine, and disease.
Those are the potential consequences of NOT fixing this.

I said it wouldn't be easy. But the sooner we get over it and accept that the solution is to stop putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere, the better off we will be in the end.

Now continue various levels of denial of what I just said.

Because CO2 emissions can be taxed

Those in power don't have any interest in actually solving the issue. If they did they would push for construction of new nuclear power plants

They want a plan that involves making money while looking like the right kind of person

>It is simple, simpleton. Just not easy.
Just for your future reference those terms are synonymous, practically interchangeable

One way or the other they share consequences, cataclysm can ensue if we fail to implement procedures which fail to accommodate for the many variables involved. Economically speaking coal and oil can't be eliminated without at least 30 years passing from societal expectations for jobs alone, or at least being compensated in another industry (renewables) with equal pay and opportunity, otherwise you're talking hundreds of thousands out of jobs immediately and more beyond that. Then there's the addition that you're transitioning to what is largely an autonomous grid. You don't need 2,500 people to maintain huge arrays of solar or wind, you do need 2,000 people digging up coal, and another 1,500 transporting it, another 100 burning it. And that's failing to account for the maintenance and manufacturing population that supports it as well as the economical efficiency of it all.

>Large numbers of people dying usually counts.
no it doesn't. tons of people are dying right now in a lot of places but I don't hear you whining about it.
It only matters if YOU suffer from it.

I'd posit that because of the relationship with the immediate discussion at hand that this particular poster decided not to include extra variables like AIDS, cancer, cholera, dysentery, infant mortality, consumable water shortage, food shortage, antibiotic shortage, crop shortage, overpopulation, poor mental health, social strata, etc.. Because they aren't immediate effects, but rather secondary effects which serve to exacerbate these conditions.

You have your definitions, I got mine.

When it comes to human beings, simple solutions are often not easy because we just aren't willing to do what it takes.

Have fun, buddy. I'm sure you'll be one in the crowd of many getting maimed by pissed off industrial workers in the ensuant riots.

climate change isn't an immediate effect

the fact that you possibly live below sea level doesn't make me twitch and I couldn't give two shits. I'm more concerned with diseases.

Food shortage and "overpopulation" is a problem of the rich. An american consumes as much ressources as 32 average kenyans.

How about we solve america and europe first? I'm sure the greenhouse gas emissions will plumet as a side-effect.

Why not remove the 32 Kenyans instead?
That's what I thought the climate meme was all about, not turning each one of us into 32 Kenyans, what will that solve?

>Why not remove the 32 Kenyans instead?
Good idea. Let's build a self-sufficient Mars colony, then we'll have plenty of space to move people to.
That's what you meant, right?

No, there is nothing in space for humans, the sooner children get this through their thick noodles the sooner we can get to fixing real problems here on earth.

Are you suggesting we reduce our standards of living to the average Kenyan so we can make 32 more Kenyans? We are obviously not on the same page.

If you want to go to Kenya and help Kenyans have at it, I would even pay for your plane ticket.

>Are you suggesting we reduce our standards of living to the average Kenyan so we can make 32 more Kenyans?
No-one is suggesting that.

Let's take pumping aerosols into the sky as example.

For it to be even slightly effective you'd need to put thousands of tons of aerosols into high into the air. And after a few years you'd have to repeat that.

And then there is hoping that there are no other unknown side effects which will fuck you up even more.

>fuck you up even more

Cloud seeding and Chem trails already exist.

I agree but even if we stop emissions now, the current level is enough to push the temperature beyond the 2 degree limit. You need geoengineering to push levels back down again. Iron seeding had great results when it was done.

Those 32 average Kenyans are subject to diseases that have been cured or greatly inhibited for the last decade. Insofar as overpopulation is concerned being that it's derived from food output and quality of life, if the support network drops its bottom the rest will follow. It's not exclusive to the rich, it's a universal problem, if anything the rich benefit from it and are shielded from it. If every person in your employment is replaceable then it's far more economical to let them go during downward trends and hire qualified persons during the upwards. The market of 2bi is far less fallible than the marked of 10mi.

Here's how this plays out in my head: you have to eliminate personal vehicles but this is nothing short of impossible. There are too many people who rely on a long commute for income in the US. If you went to electric you're pulling substantial amounts of energy from the grid, renewables won't be able to compensate. Transporting food becomes more expensive because industrial trucking is by and large the only fuel consumer other than metal mines and trains which all run on diesel. Then you ship them to the packing plant which uses plastic containers to portion and protect foodstuffs. But that's not it, you have to run fertilizer to the crops since it's not immediately available, but this is more expensive because fuel costs more.

Eliminating CO2 output is and will be impossible until a whole new infrastructure is built or some sweet new tech, simply because our global economy's foundation is oil and coal.

Even if that wasn't bait, and we've shown time and time again that newspapers and magazines don't always report science well, we didn't have many satellites in orbit to monitor changes of the atmosphere caused by CO2 in 1971.

We do now.

The data is in. The argument is over.
pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.abstract

we need to get things heading in the other direction in a hurry.

if the permafrost starts thawing. then billions of cubic meters of methane will be released. at which point we are fucked.

They do but they don't because of the media blackout on that subject, it might startle the herd.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions by Kenyans.

Predictions are difficult, especially of the future but odds are good, either it warms, it cools or remains stable. Over geological time we are in a warming inter glacial period, that is all we can know.