Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic

Re:Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' ... by yongjik on Thursday March 23, 2017 @06:03PM (#13944768)

IMHO, even if we end up needing some mega-geoengineering project for our survival, it would still be cheaper if we first stop our CO2 emission and then plan for geoengineering, rather than building something scaled for our current CO2 emission trajectory.

Basically, if an oil tanker is leaking oil all over the beach, we should first plug the goddamn hole before talking about (expensive) solutions to clean up the contaminated beach. Doing it the other way just doesn't make sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' ... by stevenwoo on Thursday March 23, 2017 @08:52PM (#13945675)

I think the problem if we are in you scenario is that 200 people own parts of the oil tanker and the beach is owned by 200 people and not everyone wants to pay for the costs of cleaning up the contamination, and that we have to get permission from the owners of each separate plot of beach and mone from each of the 200 people to pay for the cleanup to make the analogy of people roughly equivalent to countries and our current predicament - one or two powerful, rich people could pay for the whole thing but if they decide they don't believe in cleaning up and letting things be they could mess up things for all 200 by themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thousands of underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' ... by taberiand on Thursday March 23, 2017 @09:09PM (#13945747)

If we stop the CO2 generation, do we have enough industry left to perform the mega-geoengineering?

[ Parent | on HN ]