We have solutions, there's an entire field with solutions, it's called climate engineering[0]. The problem is that currently it's not politically supported because the thought of humans actively editing the climate to suit our needs makes the wildly vast majority of environmentalists start foaming at the mouth and, ironically, doom trolling any solutions because the current thought paradigm is "we have to interfere less", ignoring that it's way too late for that. Also because with climate engineering there's very little need to reduce emissions, which again makes current environmentalists get aneurysms.

In other words, nowadays climate change is no longer an engineering problem, only a political one.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

That's a simplistic take and unfair to those who are cautious about it.

Most opposition to climate engineering is based on the risks of introducing more instability to a complex system we already don't completely understand. For instance experiments to fertilize oceans with iron to supposedly stimulate phytoplankton production had all kinds of unexpected side effects and failed to produce the hoped-for outcome.

We will certainly be forced into climate engineering solutions of some sort, as emission reductions alone are no longer sufficient to solve the problem even if we drop to net zero immediately, but they should be treated with caution and skepticism because of the inherent risk involved.

It also varies by the type of engineering. CO2 sequestration is widely accepted and desired because of its low risk, but it's difficult and expensive.

Heck yeah, this why I keep coming back the HN community. But if you gotta get that doom trolling out too its all good as long as it reminds us all how hard we gotta keep workin :^)

In hackerrank I was expecting post like

"Show:HN I injected chameleon DNA to my dog"

Technical solutions are often ineffective when faced with obstacles of politics or cutting corners to make money.

Unfortunately I think technical solutions are the only thing that will save us. Most countries would rather invade others then give up their standard of living.

Here's my controversial opinion - the best individual solution is to do less stuff. To me, it doesn't make sense that a problem caused by over-zealous production will be solved by over-zealous production. We can't really expect making more stuff to solve our problems caused by making too much stuff. The new stuff we make should be targeted at increasing the efficiency of production, but, while helpful, I can't help but view that innovation as only part of a solution. Another part of the solution is individuals trying to change the functions of corporations, and the only way I can think to do that is by doing and demanding less overall. Still, though, individual change feels like it's meaningless at this point. The building I live in is run on solar, and climate awareness has been baked into my school curriculums since elementary school, but if Exxon Mobil doesn't sort its shit out, I don't think my house is going to do much.

The rest of the solution, and this is controversial opinion number two, is that we need to reorient the purpose of corporations, and the economy as whole, from profit to humanity. Only 20 companies produced 35% of GHG emissions, and 100 produced 70%[0]. This isn't an individual issue, and it won't be fixed by individual solutions. Corporations, driven by innovation as an extension of profit, caused this problem. If we just request more innovation, I feel like we're going to be fucked.

I agree that climate despair is unhelpful, but so is the "let's let innovation sort it out" attitude - we need real structural change that innovation within capitalism can't provide. I'd suggest Marxism, but I doubt that's something most people want to hear.

0: https://climateaccountability.org/pdf/CAI%20PressRelease%20D...

And this is a reason we're really up against it in facing this challenge. Every ounce of advertising being thrown at people is trying to convince them to do the opposite - buy more, eat more, travel more, etc. And no government can work against that or they'll be reverted by lobbyists or destroyed by industry campaigns.

Same reason people struggle to manage their weight. There's no money in convincing people of the cheap/easy solution to buy and eat less. The pitches are always gyms and diets of specific foods and quick fixes. You don't see an article about a very reasonable size of hamburger or normal steak pancakes - it's always the 1kg steak or world-record pizza or a burger that you go on the honour wall if you complete. We're unsatisfied by small meals, they don't seem like value for money; tiny meals at high-end restaurants get ridiculed by the masses.

By doing less stuff you're ultimately decreasing your evolutionary fitness, benefiting those who don't have such qualms.

I'm also asexual. I'm well past worrying about that, even if I did follow your logic there.

Without doom trolling nobody will vote for the people who want to implement the costly solutions.

There's a curve to most people's response to levels of advocacy. The response rises with advocacy to a point, but then past a certain point, the response drops precipitously. When the advocacy turns into over-the-top vehemence, people tend to stop responding and may even respond negatively (i.e. rebel and go full anti-whatever).

As an example of a similar drastic falloff at the top of a response curve, I recall reading that people who live right next to a dam report near zero concern about the dam collapsing, but as you go further away people are very concerned, then somewhat concerned, than only little concerned.

So anyway, we need more carrots, fewer sticks.

Hmm, that's interesting about the dam, though I wonder whether only the people who wouldn't fear a dam collapse would live next to one.

Or if living closer to a dam means you are more likely to be better informed as to the construction and safety margins and thus less likely to think catastrophic failure is likely.

This++