![]() 03/12/2019 at 23:43 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() 03/13/2019 at 00:02 |
|
If we polluted more particulates (like coal) , we could balance out the global warming from carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides and that problem would solve itself.
There'd be other problems, but global warming would be solved.
![]() 03/13/2019 at 00:13 |
|
Yep, we can geoengineer away global warming (probably), but we still get stuck with acidified oceans and maybe lower crop yields.
![]() 03/13/2019 at 01:13 |
|
“But how are we going to get around those Eastern European states?”
![]() 03/13/2019 at 08:20 |
|
My favorite was the economist who theorized we should keep up climate change so that average temps year round when up 1-1.5 ish C so we could have higher crop yields. Yeah, a lot of stuff and people would die, but the shareholders, man!
![]() 03/13/2019 at 08:36 |
|
I mean I think there is an argument that if warming could turn the vast empty swaths of Canada and Russia in arable that could be a net good for the world, but of course it would still be hugely destructive elsewhere, to say nothing of extreme weather, ocean acidification, etc. And despite the pleas of those who say the population is too large, we don’t actually really need more farmland, crop yields have increased so much that we may be past peak farmland already (and in the US if we’d stop growing so much corn for fuel, we’d be even better)
![]() 03/13/2019 at 08:58 |
|
Plus, we'd open up the Northwest Passage, so... that's cool?
![]() 03/13/2019 at 08:59 |
|
I think that may be coming regardless. I don’t get the feeling we’re going to get a handle on this before the sea ice melts for at least a good portion of the year.