The problem with geo-engineering solutions to global warming is that they would require global consent. Anything else would be a drastic violation of human rights, and potentially a cause for massive conflict. We all have to share the same planet, and some peoples might be drastically opposed to (potentially) irreversible processes such as the scattering of chemicals in the atmosphere. Any "for the good of mankind" justification is almost beside the point.
Unfortunately, yes? Nobody made the decision to contribute to global climate change; it just kind of happened as an emergent consequence of the discovery of oil. Whereas a single country deciding to permanently tint the sky is not going to go over well with the global community, probably to the point of tanks on borders and missiles at ready.
So altering the climate is fine, if it's a side effect of making money. It's just doing it at a financial loss that's a problem.
Maybe we should focus on ocean fertilization with iron as a way of increasing fish yields. Who can begrudge some poor fishermen trying to bring home more fish? It's not their fault if it also sequesters CO2.
Solar radiation management also offers possibilities though. We already spew lots of soot and other pollutants into the air without anyone rolling out missiles. We just need to figure out industries with the right kind of pollution and we're good.
Sure, but I think it'll be very difficult to get the US, China, and Russia to agree on something as drastic as this before catastrophic climate-related events start taking place. (And let's not forget all the other nations with nuclear missiles. The playing field is a lot more level these days, for better or worse.)
If the USA, Russia or any other nuclear power does it there won't be a war. Nuclear is the key word here, Those wars are much more costly than any amount climate change.
Isn't Drastic violations of human rights the other name of the USA and also all other nations around the globe ?
This view is also a specist one, what about all the other lifeforms on the planet that we could not have life favorable condition on earth ? insects, plants, ocean life, corals, etc.
Switch from compete to cooperate mindset and there would be a lot less lifeforms rights violations.
Also instead of having the USA lifestyle as a model we try try to reach and have for ourselves, we should aim for the India lifestyle so we could all live on earth without destroying the planet.
Most good engineers are wise enough to ignore the public and philosophers like you. :-P If you look at medical history, it is littered with Doctors who discovered something crucial and revolutionary who were met with resistance. The same story goes with astronomers.
How about this: Are people allowed to act in a way that will save themselves, even if it sames everyone else on the planet, and has some side effects? I think the answer is an emphatic yes!
> How about this: Are people allowed to act in a way that will save themselves, even if it sames everyone else on the planet, and has some side effects? I think the answer is an emphatic yes!
Who decides which ways will save and are therefore allowed?
That's not feasible. Even the most isolated nation-state in the world (i.e. N. Korea) has a hard time getting its high tech projects finished if all of the other countries are working against it. And they have the advantage of a fanatical following and oppressive control of the military and media.
Something on this scale would be pretty much impossible to pull off if all the G-8 countries put you/your company on an embargo list for high tech materials.
North Korea is making Nukes to threaten the world with. And is a tiny shithile country with an already destroyed economy.
It helps to be claiming to be acting in humanity's best interest instead of obviously being a despot. Think about the political aftermath of interfering with someone claiming that they are trying to save the world and having a reasonable argument that is the case.
Someone attempting this would likely be in a major country and would likely have the approval of most of the countries. If the USA attempted no amount of embargos could stop them, the same with Russia and maybe a few other countries.
It is even possible that Germany, France, Israel or South Africa could pull it off with a little politics and clandestine dealings. They could delay politically and pester larger nations and demand UN actions while continuing development.
If the US and Russia were dead set on stopping they could with a few bombing runs from aircraft carriers. I don't think that is likely because neither of these countries is crazy and would love to be saved at no cost while having a political bogeyman they can use in the future.
EDIT - Have an upvote for a thoughtful and reasonable reply though.
So, just to be clear, you want to impose your will on the planet, as a whole. You don't care about any form of democracy. You don't care what anyone else thinks. You think you're right, and anyone who opposes you is wrong. And since you're right, you're justified in doing whatever you think is necessary.
Vast tragedies throughout history were perpetrated by people who thought they knew better than everyone else, that their ends justified imposing their means on the rest of the human race.
Your attitude is dangerous, because you can use it to justify anything (e.g. you think you're about saving lives). It is evil, because it places you above everyone else and leads to death (e.g. you think you're saving civilization, which requires destroying the bad parts of it).
You either have not learned from history, or have learned the wrong lessons from it and are following in the footsteps of millennia of anti-heroes.
