Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caraher

(6,364 posts)
11. This only makes things worse
Fri Apr 14, 2017, 11:06 PM
Apr 2017

In addition to the aforementioned fact that the real problem should be named "carbon pollution" (ocean acidification being yet another manifestation), there's the further problem is that the worst prospect for geoengineering comes if it works.

The reason "working" would be a disaster is that once you start an intervention, you have to keep it up. Because as soon as you stop, if you haven't reduced the greenhouse gas levels, you've actually increased the gap between the new "set point" for temperature and what it is before it has equilibrated. The result is that the rate of warming is greater than it would have been had you done nothing, and this makes adaptation that much harder (less time to adapt) and increases the likely extinction rate.

And if you imagine that governments would recognize this possibly disastrous outcome and take every conceivable measure to ensure the interventions continue, once begun, no matter what, just take a look at what is happening right now in the US. Had Obama launched a "successful" geoengineering program, it would have been immediately scuttled by Trump.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Harvard Researchers Are P...»Reply #11