Let’s imagine that we’ve come to a point where geoengineering is the best way to sort out global warming. Personally I think we’re already at that point but let’s not debate that - let’s pretend that 99% of climate scienists are now agreed that whatever we ought to have done in the past, the climate is in serious fucking trouble and the best thing we can do is bleach sulphur into the ionosphere, or whatever the best solution is (please do not debate the merits of the sulphur idea either).
Should we wait for global consensus from backwards nations? What about, even more worryingly, nations ruled by religious people who won’t accept the science? Note that conceivably that could include the USA, although I was more thinking of middle eastern countries when I typed this.
My personal view is once we get to this, if it comes to it then fuck national sovereignty. The intelligent countries need to get together and sort out the globe for the good of mankind.
But others could disagree. What do you think? Perhaps you can come up with other analogies to climate change.
Obviously, if there’s an international consensus, there won’t be much opposing countries might do, except waging war, assuming they’re powerful enough.
Now, I’m sold on climate warming, but geoengineering…hmm…that’s another kettle of fish. It’s dubious that we would be sure that the result would be beneficial, and even if we were, it might have negative consequences for some countries. Which would certainly justify opposing it.
I would note that if we come to a point where geoengineering seems like a good idea, we probably will already be in a massively fucked up situation, and there probably won’t be many climato-skeptic left anyway because the problem will be all too obvious.
If the choice is “wait for a world consensus” or “massive global suffering on an unimaginable scale if we don’t act RIGHT NOW,” then of course you say to hell with consensus.
Nobody seems too concerned about sovereignty when it came to emitting the greenhouse gasses in the first place, so I don’t think there’s that much of a difference when it comes to emitting whatever geoengineering gasses.
I would have to go with the USA as the biggest one at fault. For all the complaints that religion is used (even by scientists!) by the side defending the environment, there is a religious, conservative (and powerful) element that affirms that there is no problem at all and it is all a hoax.
As Senator Inhoffe (R) said once,“My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”
It is hard to image that even a solution like Geo-engineering will be on the plate with that kind of weapon’s grade ignorance.
As for action I think Europe and Australia will lead the way, but depending on who is elected president, if the need arises to reach for the geoengineering solution, the USA will be in a position to help, however, we can not ignore that **clairobscur **has a point:
Geo-engineering is not a clear solution.
There is also the point that scientists that have wondered about geoengineering actually say that it might work, but only if we are already reducing emissions.
Ah, the intelligent countries, lead by the USA, contribute the most to global warming, and when it comes time to clean the mess, a bunch of small, randomly chosen “religious” countries get the stick up their ass?
That’s rather odd. Middle Eastern countries aren’t nearly the biggest offenders when it comes to contributing towards global warming.
Moreover, with few exceptions, Muslims aren’t running around denying global warming, so it strikes me as fairly weird to simply assume that of them.
Have you even met any Muslims or talked to them about global warming or did you merely make an assumption based on your feelings regarding Christians, because if it’s the latter that strikes me as quite short-sighted.
Why do you need global consensus for geoengineering projects? You don’t even need your nation’s approval. There’s no stopping you. You can start today.
Incidentally there’s some guy running around Greenland trying to cover it with white plastic in an attempt to increase the Earth’s albedo effect when the ice is melting. That’s a geoengineering project right there.
Why would “Religious countries” have any objection to such actions? Many middle eastern countries are already suffering the impact of climate change, viz drought and desertification. Hell, Bin Laden mentioned climate change as a threat in one of his very last videos.
Please find something else to froth at the mouth over.
In terms of per capita carbon emissions, four of the ten worst offenders (Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait) are Middle Eastern states. Not that the US (for example) exactly has clean hands, but Qatar emits nearly three times as much carbon dioxide per capita as the US.
I have no doubt that Muslims “accept the science”, as the OP puts it, but residents of oil-producing Muslim states sure don’t seem to care about it. Most Middle Eastern states have virtually no automobile emissions regulation, for example.
No idea why the OP puts this down to religion, though. It’s clearly an economic objection (as is right-wing climate denial in the US), not a religious one.
Personally, I’m not quite sure what it means to have sex with national sovereignty. I know you can have sex with humans and with animals and supposedly there was once a guy who had sex with a fence, but how would you have sex with a purely non-physical concept?
I’m in agreement with AK84 and Ibn Warraq that you should try making your argument more coherent.
Most claims that global warming is a hoax can be traced back to the oil companies, particularly Exxon Mobil, which is as secular an organization as any.
Yes, and that does not take away the point, the religion of conservatives in the USA is abused by those organizations and as the anti-science conservatives get access to power they do not care that they are being used.
It is not a coincidence that anti-science is a position of many of the ones that are being elected on the Republican side specially when by “pure coincidence” that anti-scientific position also leads people like senators to make votes that also help the bottom line of those secular organizations.
For climate change many religious conservatives in the USA are putting it in the same column as evolution, so much so that even science education organizations are noting it:
Very religious places like Malta, Ireland, and even Iran have highish marks on recognizing GW. US and UK are almost the same; almost everyone knows about the concept, but acceptance is lower. Former communist countries ending in -stan are towards the bottom. Afghanistan is also down there, but then it’s hard to deny something that you’re unaware exists.
I’m also confused about this thread in another way. Even if you take global warming as given – and I do – why are we so sure that geoengineering is the answer? Unless that’s the given hypothetical, in which case I think the whole question is highly farfetched.
It won’t matter what happens when we reach that point. The change is so slow that we have a hard time understanding and predicting the changes. So by the time we can agree and confirm some changes are unwanted or even threatening it’s already too late.
Sort of like a catch 22, you have to see it to believe you don’t want it to happen.
What do you mean “have I met any muslims”? I’ve met gazillions. I haven’t met that many islamic extremists though, what with living in a part of the UK and her dependencies that isn’t Dewsbury or similar, but believe me I am perfectly aware of how a normal UK muslim is. However I refuse to accept that that is remotely relevant to how a middle eastern country government works. The mere fact that they reference religion at all makes me uneasy.
I doubt the security council (mostly thanks to the US) will agree to any UN resolutions until things are obviously deteriorating (at which point it’s really too late).
I’m sure that if any country takes unilateral action, it’ll have serious consequences in international relations. But those consequences will be small fry compared to the results of climate changes.
Even when climate changes are obvious and disasterous, short-term money interests, and the US GOP, will continue to deny that it’s anthropological. They don’t have much good science to back them up now, so why would that hold them back later? Well, maybe public opinion will swing the other way.
In any case, even if geoengineering succeeds at meeting its main goals, it’ll have enormous repercussions both negative and positive throughout the world, and there will be quite a fracas over that. Whomever holds their finger on the button will wield enormous economic power.
Of course, if geoengineering is done on an ad-hoc basis by individual countries, the result will likely be a serious foul-up due to conflicting goals.
We’re in for a ride, in any case. As the traditional Chinese curse goes: “May you live in exciting times!”