> there are serious unknown unknowns that we can't take into account.
We can model stuff. Also we don't find out if we don't try.
I just don't get how we are fine with causing constant large-scale intentional harm to environment for industrial purposes even as there were so many unintended consequences, but when considering a major project specifically aimed to benefit our environment and long-term humanity it's instantly the apathetic "oh but what if?".
Plus consider the amount of free clean water energy and positive uses of that as a result of this project.
Because even industrial pollution at a modern scale is small potatoes compared to the possible consequences of honest-to-god intentional geoengineering. The risks here are in a completely different league.
We recently found out that the Amazon rain forest depends on winds that carry nutrients from the Bodele depression [1]. The Amazon rainforest is nutrient limited by the phosphorus it gets from the other side of the planet. Obviously the depression is way above sea level and isn’t at risk from artificial flooding in the northern sahara, but that should illustrate the scale of the consequences we’re dealing with: if we fuck up even a little bit, it could mean ecosystem collapse in the Mediterranean or beyond.
People constantly overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms on projects like this. Where I live we made it a point to dam up a lot of rivers to get hydroelectric power, but the dams prevented fish in the area from returning home to spawn, weakening our fisheries. And in the end the dams don’t produce that much power.
All projects like that are done for money or energy first though. We know they all come with possible environmental damage and all they do is try to mitigate it. These projects keep being done and we don't bat an eye.
This is different in that it has environmental improvements as goals. Lower sea levels a bit, enrich local ecosystem, etc. So it's a bit sad that when it comes to projects like there is always paralysis but not when we just want more stuff.
Part of it is just the audience. Your average HN comment section would likely fiercely debate the creation of crosswalks, curb cuts and other common sense improvements (though that may be true of the population at large).
If the things you felt like dont receive enough attention were available for this level of public scrutiny well, I think you can rest assured it would receive it.
We can model stuff. Also we don't find out if we don't try.
I just don't get how we are fine with causing constant large-scale intentional harm to environment for industrial purposes even as there were so many unintended consequences, but when considering a major project specifically aimed to benefit our environment and long-term humanity it's instantly the apathetic "oh but what if?".
Plus consider the amount of free clean water energy and positive uses of that as a result of this project.