

Willing to give up blue skies for climate fix? - prat
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33495560/ns/us_news-environment/

======
anamax
The objections are essentially "I believe that the AGW science but I don't
believe the mitigation science." Since the latter is mostly a subset of the
former, this is interesting.

The science behind the mitigation effort may be wrong, but none of the
objectors are making an argument that turns on specifics. They accept AGW on
faith or because of values and they object to mitigation for the same reasons.

------
chrisb
No, no, no, ... a thousand times no.

As applicable to climate change as to ethics: Two wrongs don't make a right.

------
jameskilton
When I first heard about this, I about broke down and started crying. This is
the _worst_ idea I've ever heard in this on-going climate change saga.

I'd rather we just went back to coal power and forgot about "clean energy"
than implement this.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Demonstrating that your sense of environmentalism is based more on what you
find pleasing and less on costs and benefits

~~~
jameskilton
My sense of environmentalism is caring about what's good for the planet, not
what ways we can offset the damage we've done. We have NO idea the cost of
geoengineering. Outside of ruining the sky, how many plants will die due to
lack of proper sunlight? How many animal species will go extinct due to the
loss of these plants? What about the effect of less sunlight on any living
being? Suicide rates are high in the extreme north and south of the planet due
to constant darkness. A lesser effect, across the whole globe?

And what of the effect on weather patterns due to us pumping MORE junk into
the air?

Oh and of course this geoengineering, once started, must NOT stop. If we stop
replenishing the atmosphere, weather patterns will not keep an even layer
around. We'll lose coverage, holes will open allowing pure sunlight back to
the surface, and we'll end up with a greenhouse effect the likes of which we
can't even imagine.

So no, the potential risks of this idea FAR outweigh the benefits in my mind.
I would rather just kill the planet off now instead of make it a worse death
later on.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_caring about what's good for the planet_

What the hell does that really mean, anyway? So the planet is harmed when old
plants burn? Somehow this huge rock hanging in the sky is going to be hurt by
some dirt?

I don't think so. I think no matter what mankind does the earth will continue
along just as it always has.

And you'd rather just "kill the planet off now" WTF? Tell me, please, just how
you would do that?

Look -- I'm fine with wanting "clean skies", whatever that means. But stuff is
in the sky already. Has been for eons. So it's never going to be "clean".
Never has been. If you're really pumped on "what's good for the planet" then
you need to start explaining what exactly that means, cause for just words it
doesn't make a lick of sense. In fact, it sounds like happy-happy-feel-good
talk. The kind of talk which everybody agrees to but doesn't have much
meaning.

------
rmason
The Wall Street derivatives guys smell big money trading carbon credits and
they will never let it happen. Even Al Gore who called the idea "nuts" has a
conflict of interest because he owns a carbon trading firm.

------
cmars232
Why don't we experiment with geoengineering some other planet before we screw
up our own.

Venus is covered in clouds, doesn't seem to help it any...

------
ascuttlefish
They scorched the earth in The Matrix, and that didn't go so well...

------
jamesbressi
Agread @chrisb -- This just sounds nuts. Let's poke some more holes in the
ozone and create droughts to cool the earth? hmmm

