Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Artanthos t1_jd37dvy wrote

Cost/benefit analysis.

Which option is worse will depend on the extent of the climate change.

1

ThisElder_Millennial t1_jd38p29 wrote

I'm mainly talking about how this will be a free rider problem. Geoengineering isn't free and has to be continually maintained. The issue is that since everyone will benefit, there isn't the incentive to contribute to the cause. Or, assuming the end goal is to eventually ween ones self off of geoengineering, free riders will have to be "strong-armed" (for lack of a better term) into going carbon zero (or carbon negative). Otherwise, once one of more parties stop the practice, we'll be right back at square one in regards to problems.

1

Artanthos t1_jd399lm wrote

I don’t disagree.

But if it comes down to a question of survival and it’s too late for other options, this is the fail safe.

It will cause problems, including acid rain. It will have free riders, it will reduce food production due reducing sunlight, and it will disrupt global weather patterns.

1