The Two Technologies

SRM

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/15/307/2024/

Control F - 5 Conclusions

This science paper seems to argue that Solar Radiation Modification would be pollutive and costly to implement, reducing resources that could be spent on the problem and not postponing it as the planet continues to grow worse without fixing the actual problem.

CDR

https://skepticalscience.com/what-you-need-to-know-cdr.html

"delaying emissions reductions today and relying instead on CDR later would be exceptionally expensive."

Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show

https://skepticalscience.com/geoengineering-no-substitute-for-cutting-emissions.html

Attempts to limit climate change by removing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere would not prevent the irreversible damage to the oceans, according to a new study.

The political side,

"Consider the “London Fog,” one of the most well-known examples of an environmental problem that persisted for decades without meaningful reform. For more than a century across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Londoners lived with a lethal smog that blanketed the city. It was such a feature of everyday life that it became normalized in media at the time; the opening chapter of Charles Dickens’s Bleak House famously characterizes a dense fog that chokes the city as an ordinary part of urban life. It wasn’t until 1956, when political conditions made action possible and people also saw pollution as a preventable public health problem, that the Clean Air Act was passed in the United Kingdom."

https://behavioralscientist.org/climate-change-is-getting-worse-why-dont-we-see-more-action/

NUCLEAR WAR

"Vasili Arkhipov, was a vice admiral in the Soviet Navy. He is best remembered for preventing nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

At the time of the crisis, Arkhipov was serving as chief of staff of a Soviet submarine flotilla and was aboard the submarine B-59 as executive officer. Launch authorization required the agreement of all three senior officers. When U.S. destroyers dropped stun grenades near the submarine, its captain and the political officer believed war had begun and prepared to launch a nuclear torpedo against United States Navy ships.[1] Arkhipov refused, and his decision prevented the use of nuclear weapons."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

I ARGUE,

Saving the planet seems unlikely,

We should save our own people and nations, and the planet will kill off enough of the people that the man caused pollution rate drops.

Then the few people that survive can legislate new laws that regulate lower emissions in society.

Wars and conflict between countries disrupt long term planning, as countries strive to achieve the short term.

Then consider the odds of something Earth shattering such as nukes, risk that will rise as the third world slowly improve their tech and military power.

Geoengineering is of limited effectiveness compared to lowering emissions.

Geoengineering is a temporary solution that allows the problem to get worse.

Geoengineering is unpredictable in it's theoretical effects.

If we 'were to settle upon a solution, it would be the lowering of emissions.

But I say an even better solution would be to bunker down our nations for the inevitable.

GEOENGINEERING DEFINITION AND SAFETY

Debate definition states,

"geoengineering

refers to the large-scale, intentional manipulation of Earth's climate systems to counteract the effects of climate change."

"Researchers stress that these detection efforts are still in their infancy. As of now, they believe that solar geoengineering has only been attempted at a very small scale, despite the claims of conspiracy theorists."

https://csl.noaa.gov/news/2024/420_1202.html

How can something that we need to implement at the large scale to know it's effects, be 'easy or safe?

Keep in mind how much it would cost to implement, costs that could better be spent on lowering emissions.

SAFETY

"Even if we could use solar geoengineering to reduce the average temperature of Earth, the cooling effects wouldn't be uniform across the globe. Inconsistent cooling could cause changes in precipitation patterns and in turn affect food and water security. For example, some models suggest that stratospheric aerosol injection could disrupt the Asian and African summer monsoons, which are crucial for agriculture. Meanwhile, the sulfur particles that some geoengineering methods use could cause air pollution and increase acid rain. Messing with the atmosphere could even turn the sky white."

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2023-3-fall/stress-test/solar-geoengineering-could-wreak-havoc-planet

Who is going to pay for all this Geoengineering?

Will countries stand idly by if the effects are not to their liking?

If their countries starve or thirst?

Then when they declare war and further disrupt and Geoengineering or Emission Cutting?

"termination shock: The planet would rapidly heat to account for all the new carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases released since the climate intervention began but suppressed by the radiation management.

“I compare solar geoengineering to opiates,” said Keutsch. They’re really strong painkillers in that they only treat a symptom and not the actual cause. You can get addicted if you don’t address the cause. Like any painkiller, you’re going to have side effects; the idea that you can have a strong painkiller without side effects is not true. And, as for the withdrawal symptoms, that’s the termination shock."

https://salatainstitute.harvard.edu/the-science-and-ethics-of-solar-geoengineering/

TIME

Geoengineering wastes time and resources that could be used in stopping the excess pollution 'now.

It encourages people to think everything is fine, when it's not.

CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE

"A carbon sink is a type of carbon pool that has the capability to take up more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink

Plants eat carbon dioxide, therefore if we stop polluting more than plants can handle, the plants will eat the extra carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

ONLY PLANET WE LIVE ON

It would be nice to attempt Geoengineering on Mars, but we should not use it on Earth.

If something goes wrong, this is the 'only place humans can currently survive.

If things go wrong, then even this won't be a place we can survive.

I ARGUE,

Saving the planet seems unlikely at this time,

Sure, let's 'try to cut down on pollution, save it if we 'can. But our main concern should be walling up and bunkering down our people.

In supplies, shelter, military strength, and strong borders.

The one thing we can control is 'our country, we can't control all the others and force them to not pollute.

And even if later on countries decide to change, a lot of the global warming effects will be around for a while. We need to take care of our own people.

Unsafe or Improper

Anything can be said to be unsafe or improper, but some things can be said to be 'more unsafe or improper and with more reason.

One would not say the many deaths in the Darwin awards were 'as unsafe and as improper as every other type of action people could take.

Geoengineering is unexpected to have the effects we 'want to happen, and will impede the effects we need to happen.

We need to stop polluting so much.

But Geoengineering can 'still have large effects on stuff we 'don't want to happen.

If someone stuffs too much powder in a cannon with the intent of hitting a target, it might be unlikely to have any of the effect they want (Hitting the target)

But it can still have a huge effect of blowing the cannon and nearby people up when the cannon explodes.

Pre Requisite

The existence of Climate Change Isn't up for debate I think. It's existence is required to be accepted in the debate description.

If one believes Geo Engineering would do nothing, then it would be a waste of resources.

If a scientist or recognized expert says a bomb can explode and damage a person, then one should listen to the scientist.

When can it be stopped?

I argue the debate is about what immediate action we should take for global warming

If a person without a driving license asks to drive a car,

The answer is no.

While they may be able to drive a car after they get their drivers license, no on takes that as a yes, the immediate answer to the question is obviously no.

And for this debate, the immediate question of whether we should use geoengineering is no.

As I've argued and sourced in round 1, of how geoengineering is untested, dangerous, and will delay much needed emission cutting.

Are zero emissions possible?

According to this source, yes.

https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2021/01/27/getting-to-net-zero-and-even-net-negative-is-surprisingly-feasible-and-affordable/

And again I argue, the question of Geoengineering is in the immediate response to global warming, not some far future when we understand the technology better.