>existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose

Being under threat doesn't justify making things worst. I know I'll die some day but that's not a reason to be suicidal.

Existential threat means things can’t get worse (you just stop existing).

Ignoring the potential of geoengineering implies you are sure that we have a better solution which will work. I hope we don’t have to use geoengineering but I am certain the status quo of hoping renewables and batteries in the 1st world will save us is not going to work.

Threat is not certainty. If somebody is out there to kill you, you are under an existential threat, until they are caught. It's not a reason to start playing Russian roulette, saying "I'm already in danger, cannot get worse than that!"

The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides?

I’m not saying this is a good way to think, just that it shows the fault in your logic.

>The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides?

You are conflating the cost of not extracting a fraction of a fraction of current production capacity with the risk ending human existence through changing systems we do not have anything close to a full understanding of nor precise control over.

Degrees of risk matter, in fact they are the whole point of GPs logic.

I’m not conflating them, I’m trying to elicit someone to _compare_ them so we can discuss reflexively rejecting certain solutions.

If you don’t have some measure of cost / benefits / risks, how can you reject a potential solution outright?

The answer is you can’t, so if you are doing so your reflex is based on emotion rather than reason.

I was not commenting on any measures intended to stop/reverse the climate change. (I don't have enough knowledge to various probabilities).

I was just exposing a flaw in _your_ logic :-) You said:

> Existential threat means things can’t get worse

And I disagree, things can get a lot worse. You know, like replacing a threat with certainty...

Climate change can be an existential threat to humanity and Geo-Engineering can make it worse at the same time.

How can something be worse than an existential threat?

If you knew you were going to die next week, what's to stop you from picking up smoking right now?

The truth is we don't need geoengineering because the truth is that it's not an existential threat for humanity, it's just the future is going to suck really hard for a lot of people if we don't get off our our collective asses.

Going around moaning "we're all doomed and there's no use trying" is exactly the opposite of what we need right now.

There can be multiple existential threats at a time. And on top of that, there can be actions that also increase the chances of succumbing to said existential threat.

Look at it this way. Someone who is bitten by a rattlesnake is at risk of dying (an existential threat). Certain medical care, like giving the patient Advil or any other form of blood thinning pain killers could actually end up making matters worse which in turn could increase the chances of the patient dying.

No one here is saying we’re all doomed and there’s no use in trying. What they are doing is pointing out that carbon capture and geo-engineering may not be the most fitting solutions to this existential threat, and that these solutions could even potentially make matters worse.

>“How can something be worse than an existential threat?”

If something you do makes your chances of surviving an existential threat worse, the consequences of your actions could make the initial existential threat harder to manage and in turn make it more likely to succumb to said threat.