• Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Wait, we can’t solve our problems caused by pollution with more pollution? Whodathunkit?

  • SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The potential impact of these fancy geoe gineering projects on crop productivity alone, especially for substinence agriculture in poor areas, is a a concern that was never addressed.

    That and other stuff that would weigh on the disadvantaged communities.

    Only a priviledged person would think that doing this to consume even more is better than just consuming less, or just focusing on the real needs, but here we are.

    Edit: there it goes, what i always thought could potentially happen

    even intentionally polluting the upper atmosphere with sulfur-based or other reflective particles to dim sunlight. Research shows the particle-based sunlight-dimming concept could shift rainfall patterns like seasonal monsoons critical for agriculture in some areas, and also intensify regional heat, precipitation, and drought extremes And the authors of the new paper wrote that some of the mechanical interventions to preserve ice would likely disrupt regional ocean ecosystems, including the marine food chain, from tiny krill to giant whales

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      To be fair, I don’t think I’ve seen most geoengineering techniques, especially the sulfur reflective particles one, presented as not being ecologically disastrous (though the particular damage I’ve previously seen it suggested as likely to cause was different). I’ve usually seen that presented in a “thing to consider if the consequences of warming becomes worse than the consequences of simulating a long term volcanic winter” context, in which case, pointing out that these ideas cause other damage and that their effect isn’t to just revert the climate to what it was isn’t really “debunking” them, it’s just presenting a better picture of what the potential costs and benefits actually are.

      • dustycups@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Does anyone have a good study on the impacts of shipping moving from bunker oil to vlsfo?
        Adding sulphur particles back into the atmosphere sound a bit like extra steps to me.

      • SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        They’re talking about planet altering consequences, if we get there i fear it’s mad max with some waterworld in between. Waterworld was mad max but ocean so…