Geoengineering will have its own issues that may make things worse in the long run, but the worst effect will be it leveraged as a reason to continue business as usual. That’s why I simply said we have to stop emissions. If we can’t do that, then there’s only one direction we can go (and are going, faster each year).
But as you said, stopping emissions won’t avoid decades of worsening conditions. I think actually stopping those decades of worsening conditions is more important than a hypothetical “moral hazard” concern.
Frankly, this argument always bothered me. When someone is sick you try to treat both the underlying cause and the symptoms. It would be morally bankrupt and downright ridiculous to say “let the patient suffer, it’s the only way he’ll learn.” Especially if the symptoms themselves could be fatal. And especially when the people suffering aren’t the ones who actually “need to learn.” When millions of people are starving to death in third-world nations or drowning when their overloaded refugee ships are turned away from wealthy ports, will you look them in the eye and tell them it’s necessary because otherwise oil company executives might not be as motivated to reduce emissions?
Frankly, this argument always bothered me.
Because you don’t understand the argument…
Using your metaphor the thing you’re proposing to “treat the symptoms” has side effects which worsen the disease thus causing more real damage and worsening symptoms.
The only reason you would willingly pursue that course of treatment is if a treatment for the initial disease was ongoing (in this metaphor it’s not, ghg emissions continue to increase dramatically) or if a patient was on palliative/EoLC.
You aren’t saving “millions of people from starving to death”, you’re gambling that it will hold a bit longer before tens-hundreds of millions of people starve to death, and the evidence that these “treat the symptoms” is minimal at best thus leading to both outcomes (millions soon, more later).
Using your metaphor the thing you’re proposing to “treat the symptoms” has side effects which worsen the disease thus causing more real damage and worsening symptoms.
What side effects, specifically? Some approaches to geoengineering may have negative side effects, but others don’t appear to. There’s no guarantee that an approach without side effects won’t be found.
You aren’t saving “millions of people from starving to death”
Yes, you are. Climate change would cause famine, ameliorating the effects of climate change would prevent that famine.
This whole comment is exactly the kind of argument that I’m objecting to. You’ve got some sort of a priori conviction that “no, geoengineering must make the situation work somehow” and therefore it’s not worth studying. If it’s not studied how can you possibly know?
