Geoengineering, as a concept, is not a futuristic idea but one that has been ongoing for over a century through the release of climate-changing pollutants. The question remains: should we purposefully geoengineer to alleviate the impact, or will it worsen the situation? Controversies surround this, with concerns about moral hazard, where the pursuit of geoengineering solutions may lead to complacency in making necessary lifestyle and structural changes to reduce emissions. The fear is that if easy fixes are readily available, the motivation to undertake fundamental emission-cutting measures may diminish. The worry is whether individuals or entities might exploit geoengineering solutions to evade the substantial effort required to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Decades of efforts to cut carbon emissions have failed to significantly slow the rate of global warming, so scientists are now turning to bolder approaches.
Christopher Flavelle, who writes about climate change for The Times, discusses efforts to engineer our way out of the climate crisis.
Guest: Christopher Flavelle, who covers how the United States tries to adapt to the effects of climate change for The New York Times.
Background reading:
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.