10 ms·

Every idea for geoengineering as a solution to climate change is insane. They're either nonsense, like solar chimneys, or they're like this one: way worse than

Every idea for geoengineering as a solution to climate change is insane. They're either nonsense, like solar chimneys, or they're like this one: way worse than the problem currently is, and WAY worse than not emitting CO2 would be. Take atmospheric sulfate aerosols[1], which I often see touted as the solution, usually by conspiracy theorists. The kind of people who think "big green energy" is money play, and this simple solution is being hidden for some grand reason. "Atmospheric sulfate aerosols" means spraying sulfuric acid into the air. It's all the joy of this solution with the added bonus of primarily blocking visible light, destroying the ozone layer, and scattering light so that solar panels and plant life don't work as well. Oh yeah, and SPRAYING ACID INTO THE AIR. Intentional acid rain, forever. It's an incredibly foolish, destructive idea that people with zero drive to do basic research support vocally. The cheapest, easiest and safest way to fight climate change is to stop emitting CO2. It would be so incredibly easy to stop 80% of anthropogenic emissions. These geoengineering plans are worse in every way. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols

microcolonel 9y ago
> It would be so incredibly easy I don't think it's as easy as you think it is to cut emissions by that much, and it certainly wouldn't be humane. Biological sequestration is closer to a real solution, since it is analogous to how the hydrocarbons we're burning were created in the first place. It might be easier to irrigate the Sahara and flood it with Salicornia and salt mangrove than to stop China from burning coal.
- hwillis 9y ago
  >I don't think it's as easy as you think it is to cut emissions by that much, and it certainly wouldn't be humane. No, seriously, it really is that easy. The average cost of a new car in the US is $30k, the model 3 is 35k. Every single passenger road vehicle could be replaced with an electric car for ~$1 trillion. It would cost even less to upgrade the grid to full battery-backed solar power and replace gas heating with electric. Over ten years thats 200 billion annually to eliminate 85% of the co2 released by the US and 50% of the methane. In terms of threats to the country that barely registers as spending. The iraq war was 10+ trillion dollars, we shipped 12 billion in $100 bills on pallets and lost it. Renewable energy is near price parity to fossil fuels, even if you adopt it stupidly it still isnt that expensive. You make china stop burning coal by buying them solar panels. Nobody says no to free electricity.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    Your comment equates cost with ease, and obviously that's not necessarily going to be the case. Eg something might be relatively cheap but politically difficult.
    - hwillis 9y ago
      Well yeah, thats why its in the subjuctive. To express that if we would collectively stop chewing our cuds, it would be cheap and simple to do those things. My intended point is about the simplicity of scaling production, the abundance of the necessary resources, and the low cost of existing technology.
      - jamesrcole 9y ago
        In multiple comments, you've point blank said it would be really easy. If it's really hard to get the political will to spend the money to do the technically cheap and easy thing, then actually the task is hard.
        hwillis 9y ago
        Political will is not an engineering complication. It applies to any solution to global warming. Im comparing cutting co2 to other solutions, not as a problem in general. My frustration comes from seeing cutting co2 as somehow harder than seeding chemicals into the atmosphere over the entire planet, or building a tube to the stratosphere, or lanching a sunshield into space. Those solutions are an insane level of difficulty above cutting co2.
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        > Political will is not an engineering complication Yes. Both need to be addressed.
        hwillis 9y ago
- nekopa 9y ago
  But that might damage the Amazon rain forest. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/35172/20150225/how-the-saharan-desert-fertilizes-the-amazon-rainforest.htm http://www.techtimes.com/articles/35172/20150225/how-the-sah...
jseliger 9y ago
The cheapest, easiest and safest way to fight climate change is to stop emitting CO2 Which is absolutely true, but no one (basically) is doing it. And the U.S. is moving in the right direction in some metrics (solar, wind) but the wrong in many others (urban planning (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/22/16177820/california-transportation https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/22/1617782...), nuclear (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603647/meltdown-of-toshibas-nuclear-business-dooms-new-construction-in-the-us/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603647/meltdown-of-toshib...), and politics (Trump, Cruz, etc.)). So while I agree with the proposed solution, no one else does, and even then we have to deal with China and India joining the developed world and what that means for CO2 emissions.
- grewergrfefg 9y ago
  So while I agree with the proposed solution, no one else does, and even then we have to deal with China and India joining the developed world and what that means for CO2 emissions. Don't forget Africa!
- hwillis 9y ago
  >even then we have to deal with China and India joining the developed world and what that means for CO2 emissions. Evidence disagrees. Chinese coal consumption is declining ever so gradually (~1% annually) despite their economy growing as normal. In fact their overall co2 emissions are slowly falling as well. Its an open question whether this is going to continue or if this is just a false peak, but if their commitment to renewable and green energy is a predictor then they may fall below the us emission level relatively soon.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    Serious question: how reliable are the figures from China? How can we trust they aren't fudging the numbers, either at the local level or the national level?
    - askmike 9y ago
myopicgoat 9y ago
I agree with the sentiment but your last paragraph needs some (serious) backing "incredibly easy to stop 80% of anthropogenic emissions", really?
- sqeaky 9y ago
  I think he means its easy from a technology standpoint. There are still a ton of politics at play here. We know how to build solar, wind and nuclear plants, do that and just shut down coal power plants. That is like half. Then keep working to get old inefficient cars off the roads. Tax SUVs and give tax breaks to electric buyers. None of these things are politically easy, but technologically require nothing new and might leave us with a stronger more economy because of the amount of new players and innovations in the fields affected. But the current political discourse is functionally stalled on the issue because people don't care until it unambiguously affects them. That works great for many smaller issues but for this by the time it affects the average voter we are fucked.
  - hueving 9y ago
    This is a pretty naive view. There are no electric replacements for some of the big consumers of oil (trucking, shipping, airlines, construction equipment, etc).
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      The parent did say "That is like half." Electrical emissions are more like 30% according to this[1]. Transportation is another 27%, electrifying half of that would get us close to like half. We're a long way from any of that, but maybe it's technically feasible with what we have now. 1. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
    - hwillis 9y ago
      Trucking can easily be electrified and the majority of transport related co2 including airplanes, trains, and cargo ships is from personal light road vehicles. Cargo ships are less than 2%, trains are less than 1%. Airplanes are around 7%. Around 30% is trucking. Construction vehicles are all electric/hydraulic already but more importantly are an insignificant source of co2. Long distance semi tractors drive 500-800 miles a day. That doesnt require a huge battery.
civilian 9y ago
The economy makes benefit of cheap fossil fuels. We are shifting away from them, but other forms of energy are more expensive, or they are inconsistent, and usually both. Increasing the cost of fuel and power would mean making everything more expensive. For most first-world countries, we can take the cut. But it would absolutely lead to more poverty and starvation in the third world. You're being hysterical about acid--- using a scary sounding word, even though it isn't. (You're not far off from the people who think that any chemical they don't understand must be bad, even though they never took an organic chem. class!) Volcanoes naturally put sulfur in the air, so what we'd be doing wouldn't all that different.
- saalweachter 9y ago
  > or they are inconsistent Honestly I think a big change that human industry will have to make over the next century is becoming comfortable with intermittent peak power. Some stuff will happen when it is sunny, or windy, and not otherwise. It's not crazy to say "maybe we should only smelt during peak solar hours", and probably not even crazy to say "maybe our bulk freight should only be moving during peak solar hours". Once you get rid of the need to do energy intensive stuff at night, the power storage problems become a lot easier.
  - wbl 9y ago
    Or we could invest in a proven carbon free generation technology.
    - saalweachter 9y ago
      Sure, we should build all the nuclear we can, but we should also build all the solar and wind we can, and we'll still end up with variable peaks.
  - samat 9y ago
    Domes you can't stop without effectively destroying them? Nah, haven't heard of them.
  - 9y ago
lend000 9y ago
Ever heard of positive feedback? Too late to do it your way.
- hwillis 9y ago
  IPCC disagrees
  - alphapapa 9y ago
    Why do you trust the IPCC?
    - hwillis 9y ago
      Because it is based on an aggregation of publications. The executive summary is approved line-by-line by all of the governments in the UN so it's much tamer than the report would suggest, but the synthesis of global data and studies is quite reliable. It's all data-driven rather than opinion and while it paints a dark future, there is strong agreement in the scientific community that we have not yet triggered unavoidable positive feedback on a catastrophic scale. Even if we stopped emissions dead right now the future wouldn't be roses and perfume but it's not a nightmare. For the near and medium term the most important factor is still the amount of CO2 we emit, which far outweighs the current feedback loops and the ones that are likely to activate soon. For instance siberian/canadian permafrost, clathrates and arctic albedo have all been triggered to some extent, but the releases have been outpaced by anthropogenic emissions. This will change, first with arctic sea ice, but at this point we are reasonably certain they won't pick up exponentially until we expect them to.
      - alphapapa 9y ago
        So what about the IPCC scientists who have whistleblown and quit because of their unscientific practices?
roryisok 9y ago
Until the permafrost melts and starts pouring methane and CO2 into the atmosphere, which we can't stop without an equally insane plan
- chx 9y ago
  It's sub-sea permafrost and it's possibly we have already damaged it so badly all the methane will leak and there's little we can do and there's little we know -- Russian Artic seafloors are in every which way pretty hostile to scientific research. (And also oil drilling, if you want to know more Google for Exxon Kara Sea and ponder what it means the Russian-awarded ex-CEO of Exxon is now the Secretary of State) As far as I am aware, most (all?) discoveries were made from surface vessels, often seeing a foaming sea, foaming methane. It's real bad.
  - roryisok 9y ago
    It's depressing that there's nothing any of us can do about it. All we can do is hope for some sort of miracle scientific solution. I hate the idea of geo engineering but the alternative seems impossibly worse
QAPereo 9y ago
Geoengineering is just that thing we're going to do out of desperation, which will hasten the end, nothing more or less.
- perilunar 9y ago
  If we do it, it will be out of desperation, but it won't hasten the end. It will buy us time while we actively remove carbon from the atmosphere.
- lagadu 9y ago
  It will hasten the end because?
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    We don't really have any concept of how to do it, and it will be a hammer blow to an already depleted biosphere. the cynic in me also suspects that it would lead to war.
RayVR 9y ago
> it would be so incredibly easy to stop 80% of anthropogenic emissions. Please provide some evidence for this massive claim.
- hwillis 9y ago
  80% would be electrifying all road transport and making grid electricity renewable, and converting processes to electricity (primarily converting home heating). Road+heating+residential electricity is about 70% of co2 in the us and 50% of methane. The remainder is industrial use of electricity. NB that this claim is in response to a proposed solution of building a gun to shoot a sun shield into space. The difficulty is relative. One is incredibly easy compared to the other.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    ...and where would the electricity come from?
  - cossatot 9y ago
    Electricity isn't an energy source. Right now the US generates ~65% of electricity from burning coal and natural gas[1]. This is a common misconception with hydrogen fuel cells as well, which are chemical batteries, not energy sources. While I agree with your general sentiment in this thread, simple electrification isn't enough; we also have to roll out major renewable energy generation and storage (which is still far wiser than building a gun to shoot a sun shield into space). [1]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
    - hwillis 9y ago
      mistyped and left out 'renewable' grid electricity. In my defense, I have norovirus right now and my brain is currently flowing towards a water treatment facility somewhere.
  - RayVR 9y ago
    Even converting all of those sectors to electric/renewable, you don't remove all greenhouse gases, you cut them down. In the case of personal transportation we see estimates of ~53% reduction in carbon footprint. I don't know what the improvements would look like if all utilities were forced to go renewables but we would certainly see large increases in price.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lagadu 9y ago
You're criticizing that solution based on the name instead of based on its flaws and then you proceed to make absolutely baseless claims like the one about the acid rain, which completely disregard that the amount of sulphites needed is far less than what we already dump into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. Please do more research before stooping down to sensationalism and fear-mongering.
- hwillis 9y ago
  > which completely disregard that the amount of sulphites needed is far less than what we already dump into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. Nonsense. The cooling is less effective at higher altitudes, and all the sulfate currently in the atmosphere provides a forced cooling of .4 W/m^2 vs the greenhouse gas warming of 2.4 W/m^2. The cooling relies on atmospheric water which decreases the higher you go. We would need to dump way, way more sulfates/sulfites into the air than we do currently.

microcolonel 9y ago

> It would be so incredibly easy I don't think it's as easy as you think it is to cut emissions by that much, and it certainly wouldn't be humane. Biological sequestration is closer to a real solution, since it is analogous to how the hydrocarbons we're burning were created in the first place. It might be easier to irrigate the Sahara and flood it with Salicornia and salt mangrove than to stop China from burning coal.

hwillis 9y ago
>I don't think it's as easy as you think it is to cut emissions by that much, and it certainly wouldn't be humane. No, seriously, it really is that easy. The average cost of a new car in the US is $30k, the model 3 is 35k. Every single passenger road vehicle could be replaced with an electric car for ~$1 trillion. It would cost even less to upgrade the grid to full battery-backed solar power and replace gas heating with electric. Over ten years thats 200 billion annually to eliminate 85% of the co2 released by the US and 50% of the methane. In terms of threats to the country that barely registers as spending. The iraq war was 10+ trillion dollars, we shipped 12 billion in $100 bills on pallets and lost it. Renewable energy is near price parity to fossil fuels, even if you adopt it stupidly it still isnt that expensive. You make china stop burning coal by buying them solar panels. Nobody says no to free electricity.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  Your comment equates cost with ease, and obviously that's not necessarily going to be the case. Eg something might be relatively cheap but politically difficult.
  - hwillis 9y ago
    Well yeah, thats why its in the subjuctive. To express that if we would collectively stop chewing our cuds, it would be cheap and simple to do those things. My intended point is about the simplicity of scaling production, the abundance of the necessary resources, and the low cost of existing technology.
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      In multiple comments, you've point blank said it would be really easy. If it's really hard to get the political will to spend the money to do the technically cheap and easy thing, then actually the task is hard.
      - hwillis 9y ago
        Political will is not an engineering complication. It applies to any solution to global warming. Im comparing cutting co2 to other solutions, not as a problem in general. My frustration comes from seeing cutting co2 as somehow harder than seeding chemicals into the atmosphere over the entire planet, or building a tube to the stratosphere, or lanching a sunshield into space. Those solutions are an insane level of difficulty above cutting co2.
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        > Political will is not an engineering complication Yes. Both need to be addressed.
        hwillis 9y ago
nekopa 9y ago
But that might damage the Amazon rain forest. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/35172/20150225/how-the-saharan-desert-fertilizes-the-amazon-rainforest.htm http://www.techtimes.com/articles/35172/20150225/how-the-sah...

jseliger 9y ago

The cheapest, easiest and safest way to fight climate change is to stop emitting CO2 Which is absolutely true, but no one (basically) is doing it. And the U.S. is moving in the right direction in some metrics (solar, wind) but the wrong in many others (urban planning (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/22/16177820/california-transportation https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/22/1617782...), nuclear (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603647/meltdown-of-toshibas-nuclear-business-dooms-new-construction-in-the-us/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603647/meltdown-of-toshib...), and politics (Trump, Cruz, etc.)). So while I agree with the proposed solution, no one else does, and even then we have to deal with China and India joining the developed world and what that means for CO2 emissions.

grewergrfefg 9y ago
So while I agree with the proposed solution, no one else does, and even then we have to deal with China and India joining the developed world and what that means for CO2 emissions. Don't forget Africa!
hwillis 9y ago
>even then we have to deal with China and India joining the developed world and what that means for CO2 emissions. Evidence disagrees. Chinese coal consumption is declining ever so gradually (~1% annually) despite their economy growing as normal. In fact their overall co2 emissions are slowly falling as well. Its an open question whether this is going to continue or if this is just a false peak, but if their commitment to renewable and green energy is a predictor then they may fall below the us emission level relatively soon.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Serious question: how reliable are the figures from China? How can we trust they aren't fudging the numbers, either at the local level or the national level?
  - askmike 9y ago

myopicgoat 9y ago

I agree with the sentiment but your last paragraph needs some (serious) backing "incredibly easy to stop 80% of anthropogenic emissions", really?

sqeaky 9y ago
I think he means its easy from a technology standpoint. There are still a ton of politics at play here. We know how to build solar, wind and nuclear plants, do that and just shut down coal power plants. That is like half. Then keep working to get old inefficient cars off the roads. Tax SUVs and give tax breaks to electric buyers. None of these things are politically easy, but technologically require nothing new and might leave us with a stronger more economy because of the amount of new players and innovations in the fields affected. But the current political discourse is functionally stalled on the issue because people don't care until it unambiguously affects them. That works great for many smaller issues but for this by the time it affects the average voter we are fucked.
- hueving 9y ago
  This is a pretty naive view. There are no electric replacements for some of the big consumers of oil (trucking, shipping, airlines, construction equipment, etc).
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    The parent did say "That is like half." Electrical emissions are more like 30% according to this[1]. Transportation is another 27%, electrifying half of that would get us close to like half. We're a long way from any of that, but maybe it's technically feasible with what we have now. 1. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
  - hwillis 9y ago
    Trucking can easily be electrified and the majority of transport related co2 including airplanes, trains, and cargo ships is from personal light road vehicles. Cargo ships are less than 2%, trains are less than 1%. Airplanes are around 7%. Around 30% is trucking. Construction vehicles are all electric/hydraulic already but more importantly are an insignificant source of co2. Long distance semi tractors drive 500-800 miles a day. That doesnt require a huge battery.

civilian 9y ago

The economy makes benefit of cheap fossil fuels. We are shifting away from them, but other forms of energy are more expensive, or they are inconsistent, and usually both. Increasing the cost of fuel and power would mean making everything more expensive. For most first-world countries, we can take the cut. But it would absolutely lead to more poverty and starvation in the third world. You're being hysterical about acid--- using a scary sounding word, even though it isn't. (You're not far off from the people who think that any chemical they don't understand must be bad, even though they never took an organic chem. class!) Volcanoes naturally put sulfur in the air, so what we'd be doing wouldn't all that different.

saalweachter 9y ago
> or they are inconsistent Honestly I think a big change that human industry will have to make over the next century is becoming comfortable with intermittent peak power. Some stuff will happen when it is sunny, or windy, and not otherwise. It's not crazy to say "maybe we should only smelt during peak solar hours", and probably not even crazy to say "maybe our bulk freight should only be moving during peak solar hours". Once you get rid of the need to do energy intensive stuff at night, the power storage problems become a lot easier.
- wbl 9y ago
  Or we could invest in a proven carbon free generation technology.
  - saalweachter 9y ago
    Sure, we should build all the nuclear we can, but we should also build all the solar and wind we can, and we'll still end up with variable peaks.
- samat 9y ago
  Domes you can't stop without effectively destroying them? Nah, haven't heard of them.
- 9y ago

lend000 9y ago

Ever heard of positive feedback? Too late to do it your way.

hwillis 9y ago
IPCC disagrees
- alphapapa 9y ago
  Why do you trust the IPCC?
  - hwillis 9y ago
    Because it is based on an aggregation of publications. The executive summary is approved line-by-line by all of the governments in the UN so it's much tamer than the report would suggest, but the synthesis of global data and studies is quite reliable. It's all data-driven rather than opinion and while it paints a dark future, there is strong agreement in the scientific community that we have not yet triggered unavoidable positive feedback on a catastrophic scale. Even if we stopped emissions dead right now the future wouldn't be roses and perfume but it's not a nightmare. For the near and medium term the most important factor is still the amount of CO2 we emit, which far outweighs the current feedback loops and the ones that are likely to activate soon. For instance siberian/canadian permafrost, clathrates and arctic albedo have all been triggered to some extent, but the releases have been outpaced by anthropogenic emissions. This will change, first with arctic sea ice, but at this point we are reasonably certain they won't pick up exponentially until we expect them to.
    - alphapapa 9y ago
      So what about the IPCC scientists who have whistleblown and quit because of their unscientific practices?

roryisok 9y ago

Until the permafrost melts and starts pouring methane and CO2 into the atmosphere, which we can't stop without an equally insane plan

chx 9y ago
It's sub-sea permafrost and it's possibly we have already damaged it so badly all the methane will leak and there's little we can do and there's little we know -- Russian Artic seafloors are in every which way pretty hostile to scientific research. (And also oil drilling, if you want to know more Google for Exxon Kara Sea and ponder what it means the Russian-awarded ex-CEO of Exxon is now the Secretary of State) As far as I am aware, most (all?) discoveries were made from surface vessels, often seeing a foaming sea, foaming methane. It's real bad.
- roryisok 9y ago
  It's depressing that there's nothing any of us can do about it. All we can do is hope for some sort of miracle scientific solution. I hate the idea of geo engineering but the alternative seems impossibly worse

QAPereo 9y ago

Geoengineering is just that thing we're going to do out of desperation, which will hasten the end, nothing more or less.

perilunar 9y ago
If we do it, it will be out of desperation, but it won't hasten the end. It will buy us time while we actively remove carbon from the atmosphere.
lagadu 9y ago
It will hasten the end because?
- QAPereo 9y ago
  We don't really have any concept of how to do it, and it will be a hammer blow to an already depleted biosphere. the cynic in me also suspects that it would lead to war.

RayVR 9y ago

> it would be so incredibly easy to stop 80% of anthropogenic emissions. Please provide some evidence for this massive claim.

hwillis 9y ago
80% would be electrifying all road transport and making grid electricity renewable, and converting processes to electricity (primarily converting home heating). Road+heating+residential electricity is about 70% of co2 in the us and 50% of methane. The remainder is industrial use of electricity. NB that this claim is in response to a proposed solution of building a gun to shoot a sun shield into space. The difficulty is relative. One is incredibly easy compared to the other.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  ...and where would the electricity come from?
- cossatot 9y ago
  Electricity isn't an energy source. Right now the US generates ~65% of electricity from burning coal and natural gas[1]. This is a common misconception with hydrogen fuel cells as well, which are chemical batteries, not energy sources. While I agree with your general sentiment in this thread, simple electrification isn't enough; we also have to roll out major renewable energy generation and storage (which is still far wiser than building a gun to shoot a sun shield into space). [1]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
  - hwillis 9y ago
    mistyped and left out 'renewable' grid electricity. In my defense, I have norovirus right now and my brain is currently flowing towards a water treatment facility somewhere.
- RayVR 9y ago
  Even converting all of those sectors to electric/renewable, you don't remove all greenhouse gases, you cut them down. In the case of personal transportation we see estimates of ~53% reduction in carbon footprint. I don't know what the improvements would look like if all utilities were forced to go renewables but we would certainly see large increases in price.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lagadu 9y ago

You're criticizing that solution based on the name instead of based on its flaws and then you proceed to make absolutely baseless claims like the one about the acid rain, which completely disregard that the amount of sulphites needed is far less than what we already dump into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. Please do more research before stooping down to sensationalism and fear-mongering.

hwillis 9y ago
> which completely disregard that the amount of sulphites needed is far less than what we already dump into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. Nonsense. The cooling is less effective at higher altitudes, and all the sulfate currently in the atmosphere provides a forced cooling of .4 W/m^2 vs the greenhouse gas warming of 2.4 W/m^2. The cooling relies on atmospheric water which decreases the higher you go. We would need to dump way, way more sulfates/sulfites into the air than we do currently.