In a piece in Foreign Policy, Jamais Cascio goes straight at one of the things that scares me most about "geoengineering" -- the potential, should such techniques be developed, that they will be used for less-than-benign ends.
Nuclear war scares the hell out of us, right? Why would it not scare us to think that any country on earth could, relatively cheaply, alter the entire planet's atmosphere? Or even that a concerted group of individuals could? It's nuts.
Anyway, read Jamais' article: "Battlefield Earth." More notes on the piece here. The gist: geoengineering (or "terraforming") is inevitable, since no country will accept being the last to have the know-how.
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
If REDD can’t save this….
Climate-news poem: Tck, tck, tck edition
Comments
View as Threaded
truffula Posted 4:03 am
30 Jan 2008
..so if AGW is a weapon in the hands of the powers that be, who is it being aimed at?
- us perhaps?
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 8:38 pm
30 Jan 2008
What if the contrived logic of ideology is "blinding" denialists and naysayers to the virtual mountains of good scientific evidence of global warming as well as the unsustainability of the huge scale and global growth of human consumption, production and propagation rampantly overspreading Earth in these early years of Century XXI?
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
JStack Posted 10:28 pm
30 Jan 2008
Stuff like, "well, if we engineer an artificial Mount Pinatoubo, it'll only cost $50 Billion, just a month in Iraq, versus [actually conserving energy, etc....]."
It really seems that we are facing a sort of peak economics, that will break as peak oil begins cresting."
Permalink