Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakozaur | Hacker News Reader

Most likely only a fraction of globe could afford this massive earth engineering. Some places like Mediterranean/Baltic sea are easier will be easier to protect. Most aren't.

On the other hand, even in pessimistic scenarios the sea would rise very slowly, so we will have time to build this thing.

Even better and cheaper, stop putting that much CO2 into atmosphere.

View on HN

This is a 5,000 year plan. It would be ridiculous to try to estimate what fraction of the globe could afford geoengineering in 2,000 years (if I'm taking a random guess, I'm saying either all of it or none of it).

> Most likely only a fraction of globe could afford this massive earth engineering.

Do you have an estimate on the costs of such engineering, and better yet, a comparison against the estimated cost of preventing climate change enough that this engineering isn't necessary?

Given that raising land up to 8-10 meters was done with the economy of the 18th century, even back then mostly done as a for-profit venture, I'd say it's not all that much.

>>> Even better and cheaper, stop putting that much CO2 into atmosphere.

You might want to talk to China about that. At least the US has been actively trying to reduce emissions for some time now. China, India and other countries simply don't give a fuck and won't sign any treaties that attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.

Also, when alternative energies are actually affordable for more middle and lower income families, you'll probably get more buy-in. As it sits right now, unless you have a lot of cash laying around, affordable, renewable energy isn't likely:

$35,000 for a Prius?

$30,000 for a small solar array with a 10+ year ROI?

$63,000 for a Tesla (the actual overall cost environmentally speaking is actually higher CO2 wise than most current SUV's)

Maybe someday, but that day is so far off, I'm not sure its feasible.

You're off by 33% on the cost of a Prius. And even if that is beyond your means, there are plenty of small gasoline cars that would reduce most families' automobile emissions substantially, and they are cheap.

The problem isn't just reducing the emissions produced by people who already have cars (though that would of course help); it's limiting the future emissions of the huge numbers of people who don't yet have cars, but want them. Hence the reason China and India won't agree to limit their citizens to current per-capita levels of emissions that are a fraction of those in countries with higher levels of car ownership.

USA emits 19 tons CO2 per capita, China only 5. As far as I understand, China refuses to sign any climate treaty that locks in a situation where US to emit so much more than other countries.

Btw, the EU average is 8, and Sweden (my country) at 5.5, so it's not like you'd have to give up your quality of life to reduce enissions.

If you look at per capita, then Canada is 16 and Australia is 18. If you look at it overall, then China is largest producer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...

If look at it as a percentage of world emissions, it's not even close - China has 26% with the US way back in 2nd with 14%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...

Also, if you look at your home country of Sweden, your overall population is much smaller, you have a much smaller land mass and I would expect your carbon emissions to much lower.

Also, your country was smart to start phasing out fossil fuels, and has a ton of very environmentally friendly laws which are doing a lot of positive things for your country.

If we in the US actually adapted some of your laws and thinking, we'd probably be a lot further along in reducing our country's impact on the rest of the world.

I don't think the world works the way you think. You might want to seek out some facts on which country blocked the latest Copenhagen agreement, for example. And how large their current carbon emissions are.

The price for a Prius is completely irrelevant. Global warming is not helped by every family buying a new car.

A relevant price is the price of a mass transit system. You cannot have whole cities where people drive to work. It is not sustainable.

Another relevant thing to do is stop burning coal on a large scale. There are many investments that the US for example should do that most countries with a comparable standard of living did long ago.

These are investments that can be done today, and should have been done long ago. And before you say it's too expensive you should ask yourself how public acceptance for an order of magnitude larger military spending was jusitifed.

The ozone layer problem was solved with international agreements and investments, and although the naysayers kept parroting how our standard of living would plummet, it didn't.

> Even better and cheaper, stop putting that much CO2 into atmosphere.

You're assuming that that will fix the problem. But the climate models that have enough positive feedback dialed in to amplify the effect of CO2 into something significant are overpredicting warming by a significant amount; so it may well be that stopping CO2 emissions won't help to stop climate change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com