But if we stop emissions now GW will probably continue to exist for around 1000 years as I read somewhere, and even could jump because cooling effects of soot will stop.
Global coordination problems also exist, but may be not so annoying. In first case punishment comes for non-cooperation, and in second—for actions, and actions always seems to be more punishable.
I’m not saying these mean we shouldn’t do geoengineering, that they can’t be solved or that they will happen by default, just that these are additional risks (possibly unlikely but high impact) that you ought to include in your assessment and we ought to make sure that we avoid.
Re coordination problems not being bad: It’s true that they might work out, but there’s significant tail risk. Just imagine that say, the US unilaterally decides to do geonengineering, but it screws up food production and the economy in China. This probably increases chances of nuclear war (even more so than if climate change does it indirectly, as there will be a more specific, attributable event). It’s worth thinking about how to prevent this scenario.
Scientific studies and preparation for GE is probably the longest part of GE, and could and should be done in advance, and it should not provoke war. If real necessity of GE appear, all need technologies will be ready.
But if we stop emissions now GW will probably continue to exist for around 1000 years as I read somewhere, and even could jump because cooling effects of soot will stop.
Global coordination problems also exist, but may be not so annoying. In first case punishment comes for non-cooperation, and in second—for actions, and actions always seems to be more punishable.
I’m not saying these mean we shouldn’t do geoengineering, that they can’t be solved or that they will happen by default, just that these are additional risks (possibly unlikely but high impact) that you ought to include in your assessment and we ought to make sure that we avoid.
Re coordination problems not being bad: It’s true that they might work out, but there’s significant tail risk. Just imagine that say, the US unilaterally decides to do geonengineering, but it screws up food production and the economy in China. This probably increases chances of nuclear war (even more so than if climate change does it indirectly, as there will be a more specific, attributable event). It’s worth thinking about how to prevent this scenario.
Scientific studies and preparation for GE is probably the longest part of GE, and could and should be done in advance, and it should not provoke war. If real necessity of GE appear, all need technologies will be ready.
Ok, I will add it as risks from geo-ingeneering