Made in the shade - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15162965
"In a 329-page report, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine outlined its vision for a federal program to study what’s collectively known as solar geoengineering ― a handful of techniques to reflect sunlight back into space or manipulate cloud coverage to temporarily alleviate the effects of pollution-fueled heating.“It is very well thought out, without any preconceived notions, and a very timely and prudent approach,” said Youba Sokona, a climate scientist from Mali and the vice chair of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “The critical unknown issues have been identified, and more importantly, emphasis has been put on the crucial need for mitigation and adaptation at the same time.”

Inevitable.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/solar-geoengineering-climate-change_n_605c765dc5b67593e055ff9d
User avatar
By froggo
#15168799
The report explicitly states that this program “should be a minor part of overall U.S. research” on climate change, and “should focus on developing policy-relevant knowledge, rather than advancing a path for deployment.”


“Spending this money dangles this possibility that there’s this technology out there that might save us, so it diminishes the value of doing the real systemic changes that are needed to address the climate crisis,” said Jennie Stephens, the director of Northeastern University’s School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs. “I don’t think the federal government should be doing this research.”


It is sad to think that we could have these issues better understood if there was not so much politicization over environmental and technological progress. Further on in the article they talk extensively about how individuals in the private sector are investing in these sciences, and that it would be preferable if the studies were all done in the public sphere, but I don't think there is anything all that ominous about the private sector cutting through bureaucracy and doing what needs to be done. I think however that in this instance, the private sector would have a difficult time in the deployment of the technology; I am certain they would be resisted. (although curiously enough, if it should be viewed as beneficial for humans to terraform an alternative planet, the private sector would be permitted to do so without much objection)

Research suggests the sky would turn from blue to white. There would likely be some spectacular sunsets.

You would think that this would raise concerns that the general population would resist this, however, the general population doesn't seem to have much say when the deployment of policy is decided upon. The night-sky already will never be shimmering with only stars.

The National Academies report outlines possible international governance regimes to avoid one country going rogue and unleashing harsh climatic consequences on other nations.

It suggests expanding on the U.N. Conventions on Biodiversity, under which, in 2010, the world declared a loose moratorium on climate “technofixes” that could harm wildlife. Other conventions on cross-border ozone pollution, or the baseline climate agreements on carbon dioxide themselves, could offer similar models for regulating geoengineering.

Another promising area, the report argues, is the U.N.’s 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, a rule barring countries from manipulating weather for war that came of revelations that the U.S. tried to weaponize clouds during the Vietnam War.

I think that the learned research must act as though it is oblivious to these eventual deployment opportunities; but you are right, I see this as inevitable since other methods do not seem to be working. When corporate interests cannot stop themselves, others will innovate to stop them.
By late
#15168808
froggo wrote:
It is sad to think that we could have these issues better understood if there was not so much politicization over environmental and technological progress. Further on in the article they talk extensively about how individuals in the private sector are investing in these sciences, and that it would be preferable if the studies were all done in the public sphere, but I don't think there is anything all that ominous about the private sector cutting through bureaucracy and doing what needs to be done. I think however that in this instance, the private sector would have a difficult time in the deployment of the technology; I am certain they would be resisted. (although curiously enough, if it should be viewed as beneficial for humans to terraform an alternative planet, the private sector would be permitted to do so without much objection)


You would think that this would raise concerns that the general population would resist this, however, the general population doesn't seem to have much say when the deployment of policy is decided upon. The night-sky already will never be shimmering with only stars.


I think that the learned research must act as though it is oblivious to these eventual deployment opportunities; but you are right, I see this as inevitable since other methods do not seem to be working. When corporate interests cannot stop themselves, others will innovate to stop them.



That guy is right, Congress has a track record going back to the 80s of lunging at policies that either don't work, or as is usually the case, make things worse.

My political instinct tells me handing them another excuse is like handing a heroin addict a 100 pound bag of 100%...

However, there is no doubt in my mind that the human races is incompetent at some things, and this is one of them. We will need intervention technologies, desperately.

Let me clarify things for a moment. Until we get a Carbon Tax, we aren't actually fighting climate change, we are playing political games. What is needed is an incremental Carbon Tax, that adds about 25 cents/year to the gas tax, and an equivalent amount (based on BTUs) for all other carbon fuels, including booze.

That would give the economy time to adapt, and encourage people to get smart about their purchases...
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15168845
late wrote:That would give the economy time to adapt, and encourage people to get smart about their purchases...

Maybe they'll get smart about who they vote for instead, or this will spawn a tax revolt.
By late
#15168855
blackjack21 wrote:
Maybe they'll get smart about who they vote for instead, or this will spawn a tax revolt.



Every serious proposal I've seen offsets the costs.

Let me make this simple enough that you don't need your handler to help you understand it...

Not only is this a tax you can avoid by doing things like using an electric vehicle, it's likely the offsets will give you money (or a tax reduction) even if you use an electric vehicle or start commuting by bicycle.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15168930
late wrote:Let me make this simple enough that you don't need your handler to help you understand it...

Not only is this a tax you can avoid by doing things like using an electric vehicle, it's likely the offsets will give you money (or a tax reduction) even if you use an electric vehicle or start commuting by bicycle.

:roll: How many solar panels do you own? I own 30. I already avoid the tax. It's poor people who get fucked over by it.
Balkan and Elections

A Serbian friend of mine got a free week end trip […]

Thank you for the support. Some of the BLM prote[…]

A New Study Shows Us the Single Biggest Motivati[…]

Of course it is. Or if its not, it should be. Wh[…]