Beware the "doomism/geoengineering nexus". Here's a classic example of how exaggeration of the facts (warming in fact has NOT yet crossed the 1.5C Mark: www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/ha... ) is being used to justifying dangerous techno-gambit w/ the climate: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre... - ThreadSky

michaelemann.bsky.social • 14 days ago

Beware the "doomism/geoengineering nexus". Here's a classic example of how exaggeration of the facts (warming in fact has NOT yet crossed the 1.5C Mark: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/have-we-already-gone-past-1-5-degrees-warming/ ) is being used to justifying dangerous techno-gambit w/ the climate: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/07/climate-solutions-extreme-options

Comments

casualwoke.bsky.social•14 days ago

What exactly is meant by ‘..the long-term average not exceeding 1.5C threshold.’
Is there a definition accepted by climate scientists at COP?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231130-climate-crisis-the-15c-global-warming-threshold-explained

snial.bsky.social•14 days ago

I hadn’t really thought about how doomerism fuels more geoengineering lunacy. (Note, we should be aware, burning fossil fuels is already a massive geoengineering disaster- why compound it?) #ClimateCrisis #ClimateScientistsArentLying

verityplayer.bsky.social•14 days ago

Quite.
Techno-doom is still doom.

kevinmatthews.bsky.social•14 days ago

Yes. There are plenty of actual climate solutions, if there is the will to implement them. 🤷🏼‍♂️

timrote.bsky.social•14 days ago

We just keep using more carbon while we quibble about how bad it has gotten so far. Our renewables are adding capacity as we continue to burn at record levels.

The political will to implement meaningful solutions does not exist. That’s the real problem.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/power-sector-co2-hits-all-time-high-in-2024-despite-record-growth-for-clean-energy/

michaelemann.bsky.social•14 days ago

Not sure what your point is. If we truly lack the political will to cooperate on the reduction of carbon emissions, it is pure folly to think that the global governance infrastructure exists to implement geoengineering.

wealthofflows.bsky.social•14 days ago

Except that geoengineering is big, sexy business (unlike, say, insulating houses) and as we know, tech bros don't 'need' any governance. They just take over the house.

tomfid.bsky.social•14 days ago

They still 'need' money, and it's a big, sexy business with no self-motivated customers. The market will only exist if governments create it - which implies sufficient cooperation.

ericallyn.bsky.social•14 days ago

A worse-case scenario is several nations / mega-corporations simultaneously trying to implement *different* geoengineering approaches. And possibly trying to sabotage each other's approaches.

docparadox.bsky.social•14 days ago

I fear that that level of political will is not possible while billionaires have the levers of control they have. They seem to be fixated on this idea of network cities instead, which sounds less workable and also not helpful.

hallinen.bsky.social•14 days ago

I don't think it will take that much global governance infrastructure to implement bad geoengineering.

timrote.bsky.social•14 days ago

People like the idea of geoengineering because it satisfies the desperate need to pretend there will be a technological solution to climate change that won't involve changing the way we live. It doesn't have to be possible to satisfy that desire.

aesop-tortoise.bsky.social•14 days ago

What do you think about engineering soil microbes to remove more CO2 from the atmosphere?
https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/36919-new-faculty-member-studies-how-to-leverage-microbial-forces-to-combat-climate-change/

aesop-tortoise.bsky.social•14 days ago

I have given up hope that countries will reduce CO2 emissions this century. The rich feel they have much to gain in preserving the status quo, even if it means the world burns around them. In the last few years, climate change has figured less, not more, in elections around the world.

aesop-tortoise.bsky.social•14 days ago

In the 2024 presidental election in the USA, even the democrats barely mentioned climate change because they saw it as a losing issue. Kamala Harris went out of her way to champion fracking. The sad reality is climate activists are losing the political war. I pray this changes soon, but I doubt it.

coloradosquatch.bsky.social•14 days ago

An excellent point.

skulking-loafer.bsky.social•14 days ago

I suppose you could file this article for a year or two until you are content that the 1.5C threshold is crossed and then read with a warm comfort of it's accuracy whilst embracing the sentiment and exploration of the possible urgent solutions then necessary in saving humanity.

thimbles.bsky.social•14 days ago

@michaelmann.bsky.social is right. The temperature problem is a symptom of the emissions disease.
And you don't cure influenza with Tylenol.
If your approach a disease is to alleviate the symptoms and not take the behaviors and therapies to treat the disease, the disease will still kill you.

thimbles.bsky.social•14 days ago

The same goes for greenhouse gas emissions in which the solution is to solve the global warming fever by managing solar radiation instead of greenhouse gases.
This only enables fossil fuel dependency and, until that problem is solved, our world will be in dire danger.

thimbles.bsky.social•14 days ago

Which means we will be in danger.

thimbles.bsky.social•14 days ago

A good video by Dr. Myles Allen on the subject:
https://youtu.be/I2oHmy1LJeU

michaelemann.bsky.social•14 days ago

Wrong. The arguments against Geoengineering are not tied to any particular warming threshold. They are general and universal. Please read and educate yourself on this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/22/climate-crisis-emergency-earth-day
Thanks!

carric320.bsky.social•14 days ago

The folly of thinking we'd perfectly geo-engineer a solution the first time around is insane. But I really hope the next AR doesn't just show impossibly steep reduction curves and act like that's possible.

michaelemann.bsky.social•14 days ago

The obstacles to the reductions needed are political, not physical or technological. Arguments otherwise are a gift to carbon polluters and petrostates.

carric320.bsky.social•14 days ago

Agreed, but AR7 showing just impossibly steep reduction curves that can't happen is no bueno

michaelemann.bsky.social•14 days ago

The point is that we need very rapid reduction, something like 50% reduction in carbon emissions over the next decade (which is technologically achievable). Now, we may miss that target, and exceed 1.5C, but the shallower the overshoot, the better off we will be. Geoengineering is NOT the answer.

robertm700.bsky.social•14 days ago

No problem. Trump is leading us back to the 19th century.

blueraven.bsky.social•14 days ago

No, reducing carbon emissions is the answer!

stlchapman.bsky.social•14 days ago

Would an increase in the practice of enhanced rock weathering assist in the capture of CO2, thus assisting in reaching that target?

carric320.bsky.social•14 days ago

Def agree geoengineering isn't smart. But also showing impossible cuts aren't productive either

aesop-tortoise.bsky.social•14 days ago

Unfortunately, we are not going to get a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions within the next decade. It may be technically possible, but it is not politically possible. You may call this "doomerism", but it is just realism. I wish it weren't so. But it is.

pfriedling.bsky.social•14 days ago

Also he is essentially advocating for research on geoengineering which has been happening for more than a decade now 🙄

michaelemann.bsky.social•14 days ago

good point!

drumbold.bsky.social•14 days ago

The risk of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is if effective, decisions-makers would disregard the negative effects. Easy to envision Trump making the argument that SAI allows us to “burn, baby burn.” It does not reduce the atmo pool or reduce CO2 emissions so does not address ocean acidification.

neilnotes.bsky.social•14 days ago

Maybe call it the doomism/geoengineering grift? Between diverting climate action cash towards tech investors, and giving FF companies a way to greenwash, it’s an effective way to pull public funds into private coffers, yet again

lmdigitalmedia.bsky.social•14 days ago

Just to clarify & learn:

King says it exceeded last yr for the first time, 1.5 above pre industrial.

Wat framing matters 4 Sci accuracy wen talk of “the mark” ? Is it human behav pre vs post vs the present computer age?

Wonder if this is part of how we shld communicate what the mark means :-)

michaelemann.bsky.social•13 days ago

His statement in the article is indeed more careful, but the headline is brazenly false. I consider it the responsibility of the op-ed author to demand the headline be corrected in such cases. That doesn't appear to have happened.

lmdigitalmedia.bsky.social•13 days ago

I agree, & what I’d advise too. As it’s one’s name & credentials beside the headline. I actually loathe op eds that bury at the footer the short bio of the author or the first published at e.g. project syndicate. Content for contents sake sometimes.

michaelemann.bsky.social•13 days ago

exactly! I've found that if you come up w/ a good headline yourself, outlets will often run with it. Why cede it to them?

stirlingnewberry.bsky.social•14 days ago

"I have gambled on unproven fixes; please make me rich."

climatebook.bsky.social•14 days ago

The Guardian doomism/geoengineering article makes the unsupported claim that there is a large pool of pro-geoengineerign scientists who have been afraid to speak out. In fact, the recent "scientist led" efforts to promote geoengineering are carefully crafted lobbying operations by a small geoclique

susankayequinn.bsky.social•14 days ago

They always portray it as though there are no other choices.

Have you tried not electing fascists?
Or maybe stop digging fossil fuels out of the ground?
Or perhaps building out clean energy faster?

"Geoclique" is a great term — and I'm sure they're the kind who love to move fast and break things.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply