How will we govern future climate?

[macdoc]

Let us do recall the physician's caution..."FIRST, do no harm"..

Removing/reducing our "footprints" on the atmosphere is one thing, "stasis" is another term for death.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

The methane removal seems like a promising technology for controlling global temperatures.
However, we still need to reduce the amount of CO₂, if only to reduce the acidity of the oceans and save coral reefs from collapsing.

I don't see us aiming for a particular temperature; rather, we should probably reduce the greenhouse gases to pre-industrial levels, and let the temperature adjust accordingly.

In a far-future scenario with cheap fusion power, we'll probably increase the energy input into our biosphere anyway, so there's no real worry that the planet will enter a new ice age.

 

[Trakar]

In a far-future scenario with cheap fusion power, we'll probably increase the energy input into our biosphere anyway, so there's no real worry that the planet will enter a new ice age.

Support?

I don't see a clear and definite connection.

 

[macdoc]

There is very little and in fact given no fossil burning for power it will likely be cooler.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, enough fusion power would add waste heat and so would be equivalent to making the sun a bit brighter. We would have to be using it at an amazing rate though.

 

[Trakar]

Well, enough fusion power would add waste heat and so would be equivalent to making the sun a bit brighter. We would have to be using it at an amazing rate though.

I'd cede to that qualification, but I really don't see any constructive application which would require that type/level of energy requirement,
at least not anything that wouldn't have far greater and more immediate complications and concerns than the waste heat of the power production.

 

[BobK]

It will be a long way in the future before we can actually say we have control of the climate. Until we have ready access to controllable energy resources of the same order of magnitude as the energy of the Sun, all we will likely be able to accomplish are some minor tweaks with indeterminate outcomes. For the foreseeable future we will be doing the same thing we have always done. Make structures capable of keeping the climate out, and when we become uncomfortable outside, go inside where we don't need enormous amounts of energy to keep comfortable.

Maybe in a couple thousand years this planet will be similar to Trantor in Asimov's Foundation Series. Almost totally enclosed, with ships bringing most of our food supply from the agricultural planets.

 

[Complexity]

Maybe in a couple thousand years this planet will be similar to Trantor in Asimov's Foundation Series. Almost totally enclosed, with ships bringing most of our food supply from the agricultural planets.

Oh, I sure as hell hope not.

Asimov's conception of Trantor was horrible, and I suspect he'd have agreed.

 

[stevea]

Let me challenge the premise. We aren't all going to get together and buy the world a nice frosty Coke.

It's to the economic advantage of individual to use fossil fuels and make cement - activities that release CO2. It's currently impossible to convince drug exporting and nuclear technology exporting nations with substantially functional governments to cease these clearly damaging and unsafe practices. There is no hope we can convince all nations to pay an increased expense for energy.

It's yet another of those cases where micro-motive at the personal level conflict with macro-motives (at the species/planetary level). A classic tragedy of the commons. It's economically advantageous to use the atmosphere as a CO2 dumping "grounds", but it's to no individual's advantage to remediate the situation.

I don't see the political will forming at least until nearly the entire planet is sufferng from the effects. Currently there is no common ground on how the extra costs can be divided fairly.