Podcast Summary
Simplifying financial and currency management for businesses and individuals: Mercury streamlines financial workflows, empowering businesses with control and precision. Wise facilitates international transactions with real-time exchange rates and no hidden fees.
Both Mercury and Wise offer solutions to simplify complex financial and currency management issues for businesses and individuals. Mercury focuses on powering financial workflows from the bank account, allowing ambitious companies to have precision, control, and focus. Wise, on the other hand, helps manage money in different currencies with real-time exchange rates and no hidden fees, making international transactions easier. Additionally, the discussion on geoengineering highlighted the importance of managing climate change as a risk, with debates surrounding large-scale changes to Earth's environment and the ethical, legal, and global governance implications. Jane Flagle, an expert in solar radiation geoengineering, provides valuable insights into the debate and the broader approach to climate change.
Managing Climate Change: Beyond Traditional Pollution Solutions: Climate change requires a diverse approach to management, including geoengineering, which involves large-scale intervention in climate systems to mitigate its effects. Geoengineering includes carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management, but is a controversial topic with potential benefits and risks.
Climate change is not like traditional pollution problems and requires a different approach to management. Unlike pollution issues where a solution can often be as simple as attaching a filter to a tailpipe, climate change is a persistent and complex issue due to its interconnectedness with the modern economy and the inertia of both human and planetary systems. Even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gases, we would still face the consequences of past emissions. Therefore, it's essential to diversify the tools we use to manage climate risks, which may include geoengineering. Geoengineering refers to the deliberate large-scale intervention in climate systems to counteract the effects of climate change. The Royal Society in the UK defines it as having two main sets of techniques: carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. Carbon dioxide removal focuses on removing carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere, while solar radiation management aims to increase the Earth's reflectivity to cool the planet. It's important to note that geoengineering is a controversial topic with long-standing definitional politics. Some argue that it's a last resort, while others see it as a necessary part of the solution to manage the unavoidable risks of climate change. As climate change continues to be a persistent and complex issue, it's crucial to have an open and informed conversation about the potential benefits and risks of geoengineering.
Decoupling climate and carbon emissions with geoengineering: Geoengineering, specifically solar geoengineering, is a potential tool to address climate change by manipulating the Earth's climate without directly addressing carbon emissions. It's part of a larger toolkit that includes decarbonization and carbon dioxide removal.
Geoengineering, as defined by some experts, refers to processes that decouple climate and carbon emissions. This concept is particularly relevant to solar geoengineering, which aims to manipulate the Earth's climate by reflecting sunlight without directly addressing carbon emissions. However, it's essential to note that geoengineering is not an either-or solution; it's more likely part of a larger toolkit that includes decarbonization and carbon dioxide removal. The distinction between solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal techniques is not always clear-cut, as both are interconnected. People tend to be more comfortable with carbon capture solutions that seem familiar and less invasive to the Earth system compared to new interventions like solar geoengineering. Despite the complexities and potential unknowns, ongoing research and dialogue can help clarify the implications and potential benefits of various geoengineering approaches.
Framing carbon capture as natural vs. solar radiation geoengineering: Perception of geoengineering as natural or artificial impacts acceptance. Natural carbon capture methods like trees are more accepted, but solar radiation geoengineering like sulfate aerosol injection lacks a capable system and faces public skepticism due to uncertainties and complexities.
The perception of geoengineering as natural or artificial greatly influences public acceptance. Framing carbon dioxide removal techniques as more natural, like trees, can make them seem more benign. However, when it comes to solar radiation geoengineering, such as sulfate aerosol injection, the technology does not yet exist as a capable system. The idea is to increase the planet's reflectivity to cool things off, but the aerosols are not especially persistent and require continuous injection. The uncertainties around the behavior of aerosols in the atmosphere, including their coagulative properties, add to the complexity of this potential solution. Ultimately, the challenge lies not only in the technical feasibility but also in the public's acceptance of these geoengineering methods.
Geoengineering debate goes beyond risk comparison: The geoengineering debate requires a holistic approach that considers societal, ethical, and environmental implications beyond a simple risk comparison.
The geoengineering debate is not just about mitigating climate risks, but also about understanding the societal, political, and cultural implications of creating novel engineered climates. While it's important to evaluate the risks and benefits of geoengineering compared to the risks of climate change, simply framing the conversation as a risk comparison may not be sufficient. The choice of technology is influenced by societal factors as much as scientific ones, and the societal conversation about geoengineering will be complex and multifaceted. It's crucial to consider the potential unequal distribution of geoengineering benefits and risks, and to engage in open and inclusive discussions about the ethical, social, and environmental implications of geoengineering. In other words, the geoengineering debate requires a holistic approach that goes beyond a simple risk comparison.
Cultural and political factors shape perceptions of risks in science and tech: Understanding cultural and political nuances is essential when addressing risks and regulations related to science and technology, as perceptions vary widely between countries and contexts
The perception and regulation of risks associated with science and technology are influenced by cultural and political factors, rather than just objective assessments. This is evident in the varying approaches different countries take towards risks, such as biotechnology and nuclear power. For instance, while one country may view gene editing as an opportunity to improve their gene pool, another may see it as a dystopian prospect. Similarly, countries have different relationships to nuclear power and project different effects from climate change. These differences are not unique to the geoengineering debate and extend to other areas like growth and mitigation strategies. Understanding these cultural and political nuances is crucial when addressing risks and regulations related to science and technology.
Managing Money in Different Currencies with Wise: Wise enables global money transactions without hidden fees or markups, but the discussion also raised concerns about the potential impact of geoengineering on climate action.
Wise offers a convenient solution for managing money in different currencies worldwide with no hidden fees or markups, allowing users to send and receive funds quickly. However, the discussion also touched upon the potential moral hazard of geoengineering, which could distract from the urgent need for decarbonization. It's important to note that this is a complex issue, and the jury is still out on whether geoengineering could have such an effect. Additionally, the relationship between the science and societal questions related to geoengineering should be better understood. While some argue that geoengineering could lead to complacency and a delay in decarbonization efforts, others suggest that it could increase the sense of urgency and commitment to addressing climate change. Ultimately, it's crucial to consider the potential political implications of geoengineering and the importance of making informed decisions based on accurate information.
Approaching Geoengineering with Caution: While geoengineering could potentially help mitigate climate change, it's crucial to consider the risks and limitations. The technology doesn't yet exist, and societal decision is not about deployment or not, but rather, whether to research it further. Potential risks include harm to the ozone layer and lack of impact on ocean acidification.
While the idea of geoengineering as a potential solution to climate change is intriguing, it's important to approach it with caution and consider the potential risks and limitations. The technology doesn't yet exist, and the societal decision we face is not about deployment or not, but rather, whether to research it further. One concern is the impact on stratospheric chemistry, particularly the potential harm to the ozone layer. Additionally, geoengineering does not stop ocean acidification, which is a significant issue. It's crucial to remember that no tool for addressing climate change is a perfect panacea, and we should be mindful of the potential consequences of any interventions. The geoengineering conversation is based on observing natural phenomena and attempting to replicate or control them, but we must also consider the unique challenges and complexities of a novel climate. Ultimately, any geoengineering approach would need to be carefully considered and governed to minimize potential risks and maximize benefits.
Governance of Geoengineering: Complex Decisions and Political Ramifications: The governance of geoengineering is complex due to political considerations and potential conflicts between countries. Costs and feasibility are uncertain, but research is ongoing.
The governance of geoengineering is a complex issue with significant implications. Decisions about geoengineering, including who decides what and how much, are not easily coupled with scientific considerations. The potential political ramifications of geoengineering are significant and could lead to conflict, especially if certain countries feel they have the right to protect themselves from climate change's worst consequences. The idea of vulnerable countries taking unilateral action is intriguing but unlikely due to the current state of research and the high costs and complexities involved. The consensus view on the costs of geoengineering is uncertain and dependent on assumptions about the technology and its feasibility. While the direct costs of geoengineering may be relatively low compared to global mitigation, there are still many research questions that need to be addressed before it can be considered a viable option.
Exploring the complexities of geoengineering as a solution to climate change: Geoengineering, though promising, involves uncertain science, potential unintended consequences, and indirect costs, making it a complex solution to climate change.
Geoengineering, despite its potential benefits, is not a simple or straightforward solution to climate change. The use of speculative technologies, such as self-levitating particles, could introduce unexpected costs and complications. Moreover, the indirect costs, including potential conflicts and liability issues, are often overlooked. The uncertainty surrounding the science and the potential unintended consequences add to the complexity. With carbon geoengineering, the focus is on removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This involves pulling CO2 out of the air using chemical processes, compressing it, and injecting it underground for permanent storage. The use of depleted oil and gas sites for storage is an appealing option due to their availability. However, the natural techniques proposed, such as planting forests, also come with their own challenges and limitations. In conclusion, while geoengineering offers a potential solution to climate change, it is important to acknowledge and address the uncertainties, indirect costs, and potential unintended consequences associated with it.
Scaling up negative emissions technologies: Despite the need for negative emissions technologies to limit global warming, their wide-scale deployment faces uncertainty and economic challenges.
While there are various approaches to removing carbon from the atmosphere, including natural methods like soil carbon sequestration and afforestation, and technological methods like direct air capture and BECCS, the uncertainty and scalability of these solutions make it a complex issue. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's models for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels rely on wide-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies, which do not exist at scale yet. The question is whether it's technically and economically feasible to scale up these technologies. Some argue that it's a daunting undertaking due to the diluted presence of carbon in the atmosphere and the lack of a significant market for carbon capture. Without a price on carbon, there's little incentive to invest in carbon removal technologies. The challenge is to determine if we can make these technologies viable and if they will be a significant part of the solution to climate change.
Government incentives and market demand driving growth of direct air capture technology: The 45q tax credit incentivizes companies to capture CO2 and sell it as a synthetic fuel, while markets for CO2 exist in construction materials and enhanced oil recovery. Continued investment in research and development and technology-forcing policies could lead to cost declines and economies of scale.
The combination of government incentives, such as the 45q tax credit, and market demand for low-carbon fuels is driving the growth of direct air capture technology. This technology, which captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and either sells it as a fuel or puts it to other productive uses, is receiving significant attention due to its potential to help mitigate climate change. The 45q tax credit acts as a price on carbon, incentivizing companies to capture CO2 and sell it as a synthetic fuel. Additionally, there are markets for CO2 that can be used in the production of construction materials or in enhanced oil recovery. The value of this tax credit varies depending on the specific application, with direct air capture from ambient air commanding a higher price. While there is debate over whether direct air capture is a technology that will significantly improve over time or is limited by physical constraints, many believe that continued investment in research and development and the implementation of technology-forcing policies could lead to cost declines and economies of scale. Overall, the combination of government incentives and market demand is helping to bootstrap the growth of direct air capture technology and its potential role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The importance of carbon capture in industrial decarbonization: Carbon capture technology is essential for reducing emissions in industries where decarbonization is challenging, but its implementation is uncertain and delaying immediate emission reduction efforts could lead to moral hazard.
Carbon capture technology, particularly in the industrial sector, is a crucial part of the conversation when it comes to reducing emissions and addressing climate change. While there are debates around the value of carbon capture in the power sector, it's a more pressing need in manufacturing and chemical processes where decarbonization is more challenging. Carbon capture can help mitigate emissions from concentrated sources like car exhaust pipes and oil refinery smokestacks. However, the lack of action on this front, despite the technology being available, is concerning. The uncertainty surrounding the future and the need for a diversified approach to addressing climate change suggest that we should be considering near-term actions that are robust in the face of multiple plausible futures. The debate around geoengineering also highlights the potential for moral hazard, as there's a fear that people might become overly reliant on this technology and delay taking more immediate action to reduce emissions.
The Fear of Moral Hazard in Solar Geoengineering: The moral hazard of solar geoengineering, or the potential for it to reduce the urgency to address climate change, is a complex issue. Some fear that public support for geoengineering may divert resources and attention from more effective climate solutions.
The fear is that people may see solar geoengineering as a cheaper and easier alternative to reducing emissions, but it's not, and may refuse to invest in decarbonization as a result. This is a concern because the political world is not always shaped by a strong understanding of climate science, and surveys asking people's opinions on geoengineering may not accurately reflect how things will play out in politics. The idea of moral hazard, or the potential for geoengineering to reduce the urgency to address climate change, is a complex issue. Some argue that the public may not support climate action but still support geoengineering, creating a false choice. Others worry that once political attention and resources are focused on geoengineering, they may be diverted from more effective solutions. Ultimately, the question is whether and when there will be a political cost for opposing climate action, and where that cost will lead. However, given the current state of political dynamics and the urgency of the climate crisis, some argue that we may already be past the point of no return and will need every tool at our disposal to address it.
Geoengineering Debate: Beyond Scientific Evidence: The geoengineering debate goes beyond scientific evidence, involving political and value choices. Inclusivity in discussions is crucial, but moral hazard arguments often mask underlying values debates. More research may not resolve the dispute, and the feasibility and desirability of radical social engineering should be questioned.
The debate around geoengineering, particularly solar radiation modification, is not solely based on scientific evidence but also on political and value choices. The speaker believes that we should aim for inclusivity in discussions about earth-shaping interventions but acknowledges that it's not a luxury to decide on fatalism. The moral hazard argument, according to the speaker, often masks underlying values debates within the climate community. The speaker is skeptical that more research on geoengineering will resolve this dispute and emphasizes the importance of being symmetric in our analysis of social and technological engineering. The speaker also expresses skepticism about the feasibility and desirability of radically socially engineering the entire planet, given the potential unintended consequences. The line between ambition and delusion in climate change mitigation and adaptation is not clear-cut, and people use these terms strategically to advance their political and value agendas. Ultimately, the speaker does not have a strong view on whether wizard or prophet approaches are better but believes that the decision will be made not doing it.
Addressing climate change with geoengineering: Requires global governance, international cooperation, and R&D investment for effective implementation of geoengineering solutions, while ensuring careful consideration and collaboration to avoid unintended consequences
Addressing climate change requires a multifaceted approach, including heavy investment in carbon pricing and R&D, as well as the exploration of various solutions such as geoengineering. However, the lack of global governance structures poses a significant challenge, particularly in the case of geoengineering. While some climate policies can be more bottom-up and driven by cost declines and innovation, such as the growth of renewable energy, the deployment of sulfate aerosols may require more inclusive governance structures and international cooperation. It's important to note that research and development in geoengineering should not be mistaken for an "ought to use it" decision. Moving forward, a sensible policy framework would involve building inclusive governance and input processes, but there is currently no specific bill or model to reference. The complexity and uniqueness of geoengineering in the context of other emerging technologies necessitate careful consideration and collaboration on a global scale.
Limited progress in solar geoengineering research: Despite limited resources, there's progress in solar geoengineering research with reports from the National Academy of Sciences and upcoming studies, as well as increasing private funding and influential books like 'The Planet Remade' and 'Experiment Earth'.
The research on solar geoengineering, a potential solution to combat climate change by reflecting sunlight and reducing global temperatures, is at an impasse due to limited engagement from technology developers, decision-makers, and social scientists. This has resulted in a research impasse and a lack of significant funding. However, there are signs of progress, including a report from the National Academy of Sciences in the US and an upcoming study led by David Keith. Despite the limited resources, there is an increase in private funding for geoengineering research. Two influential books on the subject are "The Planet Remade" by Oliver Morton and "Experiment Earth" by Jack Stilgoe. These books offer valuable insights into the potential and implications of geoengineering.
The Importance of Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering: Explore the nuanced approach to geoengineering, considering not only scientific aspects but also social and ethical implications through books like 'Making, Doing, and Dealing with the Climate' and 'Frontiers of Illusion'.
Learning from this episode of The Ezra Klein Show is the importance of responsible innovation in the field of geoengineering, as discussed in Jack Stilgoe's book "Making, Doing, and Dealing with the Climate: Why the Governance of Geoengineering Matters." Stilgoe argues for a nuanced approach to geoengineering, considering not only the scientific aspects but also the social and ethical implications. Another book mentioned, "Frontiers of Illusion" by Dan Sarewitz, delves into the connections between science policy, funding, and social outcomes in the US. This book provides valuable insights into the mythology surrounding science and policy decisions. These books emphasize the need for a thoughtful and multifaceted approach to scientific innovation and policy, as well as the importance of understanding the societal contexts in which these decisions are made. If you're interested in these topics, be sure to check out these books and share your thoughts. You can find more information and engage with the show at EzraKlein.com. Thank you for listening to The Ezra Klein Show, produced by Vox Media Podcast Network.
