4 ms·

Turning the Tide on Climate Change with Green Sand Beaches [pdf]

38 points by mrnobody_67 7y ago

mrnobody_67 7y ago
This sounds pretty viable, and very cost effective. Any climate scientists want to chime in?
- thepangolino 7y ago
  A lot of geo engineering solutions sound way more cost effective than the currently undertaken mainstream efforts. The issue with geoengineering is the ethical questions it raises.
  - devoply 7y ago
    Only if you are putting stuff into the atmosphere. If you are for instance removing CO2 to sequester it, no one should bat an eye. Same if you put a bunch of green sand somewhere. Really no price should be too high to pay to prevent global warming. It will be a problem which will cost literally trillions of dollars if we don't fix it.
    - naravara 7y ago
      The ethical questions are more along the lines of what kind of ecological damage or habitat destruction you’re doing.
  - throwaway13337 7y ago
    We're already geoengineering without intention to create energy. This moral question is a red herring. It's more that those against geoengineering have unrealistic expectations that things can go 'back to the way they were' - some idealized past where the balance of nature is achieved and everything stays static. A fiction created by popular media. The world hasn't ever been static. With or without humans. We need a new basic narrative to get out of this way of thinking. It's really that intrinsic. We see the idealized past in Tolkien's work, in Avatar, in Disney movies - they create an idea that the only solution forward is reverse entropy. This is a damaging idea because it removes agency from us humans and leaves it up to the gods in which we'll inevitably come up empty-handed.
- avip 7y ago
  <not a climate scientist /> EW was never field-tested in any significant capacity. We know nothing about the cost-effectiveness of it, because we hardly understand if it'll work at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207#20596492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207#20596492
Gravityloss 7y ago
Hmm so olivine is $25 per ton while coal is $50 per ton. Assuming a roughly equal amount is needed to offset, it could work, increasing energy price by about 50%?
- helkafen 7y ago
  There is no viable roadmap that includes fossil fuels.
omosubi 7y ago
FYI, This was discussed a little while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403570 I do wonder about the effects on aquatic ecosystems and migratory birds/other animals that use the beaches to nest.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  Has anyone studied the wildlife effects (or lack thereof) of natural olivine beaches? They seem healthy in travel magazine photos, but of course that’s no substitute for science. https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/beach-vacations/worlds-green-sand-beaches https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/beach-vacations/...
esotericn 7y ago
What effect would this have on the ecosystems of the beach? I suppose in some sense you could consider it a trolley problem - do we kill one to save millions - but it seems very intensive?
- cryptoz 7y ago
  Well, it's a twist on the trolley problem because there is a background state of coral reefs and beaches dying already. So we're killing the beaches and saving none, presently. I think this is a case where the trolley problem is easily morally solved; it's morally urgent to slow pace of coral reef death and other marine life death, and since it is already our actions causing this I think it is quite morally right to take any action that reduces the suffering of life overall.
  - mistrial9 7y ago
    .. if vast over-simplifications are taken as truth, then yes.
- zby 7y ago
  There are already four natural olivine beaches on Earth - we can study them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papakolea_Beach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papakolea_Beach
_ntka 7y ago
7 cubic km of olivine is a staggering amount. Makes you wonder whether the effect of deploying the olivine would even offset the energy cost and CO2 emissions of extracting and moving around all that rock.
- thatswrong0 7y ago
  I would assume that the cost of extracting and moving is baked into that number Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20407355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20407355
watertom 7y ago
My first question is why don't they list the TWO independent accounting firms that are auditing this non-profit? I realize that not all states require nonprofits to conduct audits but this seems like a wonderful area to scam people. "Buy this $300 necklace and save the planet" It's great on paper, but we find nonprofits mostly benefit the people running them and very little of the money actually goes to the actions the nonprofits claim to be undertaking. The science can be sound, and their intentions can be honorable, but that doesn't mean that what they want to do is financially viable, especially if the principles are paying themselves very high salaries, which is typically what happens with nonprofits. I know a couple of multi-millionaires who been running struggling nonprofits for years. It's funny how the people running the nonprofit have done phenomenally well but their nonprofits hardly do anything, modern day snake oil salesmen. I would think that an organization trying to save the planet would want to be make sure everything they do is transparent and above board.
- avip 7y ago
  It boils down to your opinion on https://farawayproject.org/ https://farawayproject.org/, under which they operate. I thought faraway is a great idea, but maybe it's just another clever tax loophole.

38 points by mrnobody_67 7y ago

mrnobody_67 7y ago

This sounds pretty viable, and very cost effective. Any climate scientists want to chime in?

thepangolino 7y ago
A lot of geo engineering solutions sound way more cost effective than the currently undertaken mainstream efforts. The issue with geoengineering is the ethical questions it raises.
- devoply 7y ago
  Only if you are putting stuff into the atmosphere. If you are for instance removing CO2 to sequester it, no one should bat an eye. Same if you put a bunch of green sand somewhere. Really no price should be too high to pay to prevent global warming. It will be a problem which will cost literally trillions of dollars if we don't fix it.
  - naravara 7y ago
    The ethical questions are more along the lines of what kind of ecological damage or habitat destruction you’re doing.
- throwaway13337 7y ago
  We're already geoengineering without intention to create energy. This moral question is a red herring. It's more that those against geoengineering have unrealistic expectations that things can go 'back to the way they were' - some idealized past where the balance of nature is achieved and everything stays static. A fiction created by popular media. The world hasn't ever been static. With or without humans. We need a new basic narrative to get out of this way of thinking. It's really that intrinsic. We see the idealized past in Tolkien's work, in Avatar, in Disney movies - they create an idea that the only solution forward is reverse entropy. This is a damaging idea because it removes agency from us humans and leaves it up to the gods in which we'll inevitably come up empty-handed.
avip 7y ago
<not a climate scientist /> EW was never field-tested in any significant capacity. We know nothing about the cost-effectiveness of it, because we hardly understand if it'll work at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207#20596492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594207#20596492

Gravityloss 7y ago

Hmm so olivine is $25 per ton while coal is $50 per ton. Assuming a roughly equal amount is needed to offset, it could work, increasing energy price by about 50%?

helkafen 7y ago
There is no viable roadmap that includes fossil fuels.

omosubi 7y ago

FYI, This was discussed a little while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403570 I do wonder about the effects on aquatic ecosystems and migratory birds/other animals that use the beaches to nest.

floatingatoll 7y ago
Has anyone studied the wildlife effects (or lack thereof) of natural olivine beaches? They seem healthy in travel magazine photos, but of course that’s no substitute for science. https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/beach-vacations/worlds-green-sand-beaches https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/beach-vacations/...

esotericn 7y ago

What effect would this have on the ecosystems of the beach? I suppose in some sense you could consider it a trolley problem - do we kill one to save millions - but it seems very intensive?

cryptoz 7y ago
Well, it's a twist on the trolley problem because there is a background state of coral reefs and beaches dying already. So we're killing the beaches and saving none, presently. I think this is a case where the trolley problem is easily morally solved; it's morally urgent to slow pace of coral reef death and other marine life death, and since it is already our actions causing this I think it is quite morally right to take any action that reduces the suffering of life overall.
- mistrial9 7y ago
  .. if vast over-simplifications are taken as truth, then yes.
zby 7y ago
There are already four natural olivine beaches on Earth - we can study them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papakolea_Beach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papakolea_Beach

_ntka 7y ago

7 cubic km of olivine is a staggering amount. Makes you wonder whether the effect of deploying the olivine would even offset the energy cost and CO2 emissions of extracting and moving around all that rock.

thatswrong0 7y ago
I would assume that the cost of extracting and moving is baked into that number Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20407355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20407355

watertom 7y ago

My first question is why don't they list the TWO independent accounting firms that are auditing this non-profit? I realize that not all states require nonprofits to conduct audits but this seems like a wonderful area to scam people. "Buy this $300 necklace and save the planet" It's great on paper, but we find nonprofits mostly benefit the people running them and very little of the money actually goes to the actions the nonprofits claim to be undertaking. The science can be sound, and their intentions can be honorable, but that doesn't mean that what they want to do is financially viable, especially if the principles are paying themselves very high salaries, which is typically what happens with nonprofits. I know a couple of multi-millionaires who been running struggling nonprofits for years. It's funny how the people running the nonprofit have done phenomenally well but their nonprofits hardly do anything, modern day snake oil salesmen. I would think that an organization trying to save the planet would want to be make sure everything they do is transparent and above board.

avip 7y ago
It boils down to your opinion on https://farawayproject.org/ https://farawayproject.org/, under which they operate. I thought faraway is a great idea, but maybe it's just another clever tax loophole.