What should we do about climate change?

It is too late to stop the effects of climate change

Question: What should we do about climate change?
Position‹5 of 5: We need to artificially reshape the climate system to survive
Argument‹2 of 2: It is too late to stop the effects of climate change

No matter how much we reduce emissions, there will be climate catastrophes, Therefore, we need to artificially alter the climate along with reducing emissions in order to prevent catastrophe.

The argument

Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise globally with no indication that they will begin to significantly decrease soon. The longer we emit greenhouse gasses, the higher the chances we will reach a point of no return, when even halting emissions won't be enough to prevent disasters. As that point in time nears, we may need geoengineering to prevent such major disasters. Greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, and we are already seeing natural disasters likely caused by climate change such as extreme droughts and forest fires. Furthermore, as the earth begins to warm from the gasses humans emit, positive feedback loops are also causing the planet to warm in ways we cannot really control. For instance, the melting tundras and glaciers release greenhouse gasses as they melt, causing the earth to heat up, causing them to melt faster and release more greenhouse gases. We cannot stop those or fully anticipate how much of an effect such positive feedback loops will have. If we were able to halt our emissions we would still be facing the consequences of the carbon already in the atmosphere, and those of the positive feedback loops. While geoengineering is not a substitute for reducing emissions, it is a necessary component for preventing worse climate disasters than we are already experiencing.

Premises

[P1]Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, and existing emissions plus positive feedback loops like melting tundras have already locked in significant warming that cannot be reversed by cutting emissions alone. [P2] Without additional intervention, this committed warming will produce disasters worse than those we are already experiencing. [P3] Geoengineering is the only available tool capable of counteracting warming that emissions reductions can no longer prevent. [C] Therefore, we need to artificially reshape the climate system to survive the effects of climate change.

Counter-arguments

While the situation is dire, there is still time to reduce our emissions before we reach the point of no return, and many major nations have shown an interest in decreasing carbon emissions. Dedication to reducing carbon emissions may decrease if countries began to seriously see geoengineering as a way out of the consequences of climate change. Furthermore, geoengineering could have consequences, and by suddenly altering the carbon content in one part of the atmosphere, there may be severe weather in another part, making geoengineering a hazard we should not engage with while other solutions remain.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The counter holds that the point of no return has not been passed: the situation is dire but there is still time to cut emissions, and many major nations have shown interest in doing so. [Rejecting P3] Geoengineering is not treated as a safe instrument either — altering the carbon content of one part of the atmosphere may produce severe weather in another, which the counter regards as a hazard not worth running while other solutions remain available. [Rejecting C] The counter adds a second-order objection: treating geoengineering as the way out could itself weaken the commitment to emissions reduction, so adopting the conclusion risks bringing about the situation the argument says we are already in.