this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
59 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22941 readers
115 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
Sulv@hexbear.net
59
So what would Climate Stalin have to do? (hexbear.net)
submitted 3 months ago by ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With the fires in LA it’s hard to feel optimistic about the future. I want to be reminded that all is not lost, we need to do a lot that likely won’t be done but there are still things to do.

So let’s say Climate Stalin became Supreme Leader of the World or just President of the United States tomorrow. Whats next? What steps do we take to stop climate change getting worse and mitigate the damage we’ve already done?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] combat_doomerism@hexbear.net 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

my hot take is that on top of everything else people have been mentioning, we are going to have to do some form of intentional geoengineering. I understand that this is a big risk, but it feels like we're starting to get to the territory where we have to take risks, even if they might cause famines that kill millions etc. because if we don't the consequences would be far worse. fitting for a "climate stalin" scenario too, considering the strategy the USSR had to use to industrialize under Stalin

[–] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I agree, and the “throw a bunch of iron shavings in the ocean” option seems relatively low risk from what I understand?

[–] combat_doomerism@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

i'm sure every project is inherently risky just because we dont have models accurate enough to actually know how risky something is, but it does seem like a better idea to me than simulating massive volcanic eruptions with sulfur dioxide lol, which is what I normally see get brought up as the first option

as far as what i think is the best option, im not well informed but i remember stumbling upon this wikipedia article some months back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_daytime_radiative_cooling , ive never seen anyone mention it before though so i assume it's got some big drawbacks or something like that. but like this part:

Some estimates propose that dedicating 1–2% of the Earth's surface area to PDRC would stabilize surface temperatures

seems very promising to me? i remember doing the math and even by the current (presumably higher) prices listed on wikipedia, it would only take a couple trillion of dollars or something like that? it was only like 2 or 3 years of the US defense budget iirc, although I suppose this doesnt account for labor costs