Climate change requires a call to arms for everyone.

Many scientific experts don't believe that enhanced technology can be the main solution. True, technology can be a part of the solution, but changing our values and life habits are much more important. That's why top recommended environmental measure is carbon taxes, not subsidizing energy efficiency.

We've already made dramatic technological progress on our energy efficiency since the industrial era. This has never prevented our emissions from increasing - it's usually only made pollution more affordable and therefore more widespread; fuel efficiency in car engines is a good example of that.

Spreading the belief that technology will eventually save the day is not helpful, because it gives people an excuse to postpone changing their lifestyle, and we cannot afford that.

EDIT: forgot to post, Bret Victor is with you: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/

To be clear, I never said technology was the only solution. We have to parallel-path this entire enterprise. We need a change of culture and values just as much as technology. I'm not counting on only technology, but I really do believe we'll need both approaches here. As engineers, our part in this may be to create technological solutions. I hope culture thought leaders do their part and espouse a different way of living that replaces material consumption and status symbols with real human community.

Yeah, I was saying this to add to what you said, not to disagree with you - sorry if I didn't make that very clear. I on the same quest as you are.

> Many scientific experts don't believe that enhanced technology can be the main solution. True, technology can be a part of the solution, but changing our values and life habits are much more important.

Are you sure these are scientists? Because this sounds a lot like an ideological belief, not a scientific one. I definitely know a lot of activists who believe this.

Yes I'm sure - unfortunately most of my references are French, so I don't think it's useful to share them here.

I do agree with the sad statement that we're generally lacking a scientifically rigorous and pragmatic leadership in climate activism.

Should we really take a gamble that engineers will come up with enhanced technology ?

If the future is uncertain, we should rather do too much than too little. That is how insurance works.

Insisting on hardcore changing values as the main instrument of climate action is likely to backfire, however. Imagine if we had responded to ozone depletion by insisting people not use refrigerators and air conditioning versus just developing non-depleting refrigerants?

Great example.

It is career suicide for scientists to pursue technology-based approaches to climate change (geoengineering)

It is an engineering challenge, but not in development and innovation so much as in policy and implementation. There is a lack of understanding of that what is happening isn't a choice. It is an escalating situation where things you don't deal with today will cost more to deal with tomorrow. Something we and our societies aren't used to. Rather we are used to a Moore's law situation where things get better by themselves. The future will very likely be defined by who can provide more prosperity for less energy. Something that many countries won't manage to align with for many decades.

So unfortunately I think the optimism is misguided. The current trend is more like that demotivaional poster, "if you are not part of the solution, there is good money to be made in prolonging the problem".

It won't get better by itself, hence the "call to arms". Engineers need to choose to work on, maybe even for less money or less job security, solutions which are so much better that policy and implementation will contort themselves toward the new paradigms. Politics is the really effective avenue to solve this but it is a lot easier if better alternative solutions exist.

I wanted to emphasize that the optimism can be a useful tool to gain motivation. Realistically I think we're in for a world of hurt, but being depressed doesn't motivate me like optimism does. It's a mind trick, not a realistic accounting of the current state of affairs.

That isn't really the point. It doesn't make any sense to be optimistic that a factor will change when it is the overall equation that is wrong.

> Engineers need to choose to work on, maybe even for less money or less job security, solutions which are so much better that policy and implementation will contort themselves toward the new paradigms.

Not only is this becoming harder in most countries every year in recent decades, but the paradigm shift already happened with climate change. If you want to be optimistic you could be optimistic that we find a way to change the equation. In its current state your optimism is awfully close to it being someone else's problem.

Earth will be the terraforming planet we will cut our teeth on.

Inevitably.