Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
You make my point for me:  

In the absence of change, we enter the scenerio implied by technopolitical's point 2).  SO2 injected into the stratosphere keeps the Earth just barely cool enough.  Making no change, we keep releasing CO2 into the lower atmosphere at an increasing rate, as a by-product of continuing and expanding industrial civilization.  As a result, the amount of SO2 that needs to be injected into the stratosphere also increases, until the precipitating SO2 DOES become an environmental problem.  We have then achieved a world that is just barely cool, and multiply polluted.  

At what point do these extra problems add to the accelerating destruction of the biosphere to the extent that it ends human life support?  That time comes.  

Fundamental change is not only necessary, it is going to happen whether or not anybody likes it.  The only question is whether there is a way to choose the better, rather than the worse, changes.  

nobody will be around to give a fsck about it.

I don't favor policies of extinction.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Oct 15th, 2006 at 07:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Read the article again: this isn't about avoiding change.  CO2 reduction alone will not reverse global warming, not within a timeframe of a few decades.  But a SO2 sunscreen will.  The two are orthogonal, and probably both will be necessary.

Am I still making your point for you?  Most certainly not.  This whole "but $TECHNOLOGY will not accelerate transitioning to $GREEN_PIPEDREAM and is therefore bad" argument is still religious in nature, off-topic anyway and prevents rational discussion of the proper course of action.  Besides being just wrong, that is.

by ustenzel on Sun Oct 15th, 2006 at 03:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series