4 ms·

Yes, but we're rapidly approaching a point where the planet's own greenhouse gases take us several degrees further even if we stop emissions entirely. A sunshad

Yes, but we're rapidly approaching a point where the planet's own greenhouse gases take us several degrees further even if we stop emissions entirely. A sunshade could head that off, and give us time to pull CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

willis936 7y ago
I think if there are not short term economic consequences to global warming then there will not be any solutions that get resources. This isn’t a wild speculation so much as it is the status quo.
- raducu 7y ago
  Russia will benefit greatly by global warming, it also relies on oil exports, also benefit vy weakening Europe with an inflow of climatic reffugees, has incredible incentives to actively make it happen.
  - fenk85 7y ago
    It will not * that good black chernozem soul which makes up the Russian breadbasket would turn into desert in south of this region, while in the north the soil is too poor * mass forest fires would choke the air * melting permafrost would destroy existing badly maintained infrastructure and cities If Russia is hoping for positives out of climate change they are in for a surprise
    - raducu 7y ago
      Maybe I was just regurgitating what the youtube channel Caspian Report was saying, but I think he suggested that Russia could just do agriculture up north and it would have the northern ocean open for sailing all year long and acces to hidrocarbons there.
      - arbitrary_name 7y ago
        Thinking deeply about it, would it actually lead to better outcomes for Russia? Risks 1) Social destabilization driven by collapse of southern agricultural communities and their migration northward. Keep in mind that already the northern communities are being heavily impacted by the thaw of the permafrost that many cities and towns are built on - to establish more infrastructure means building on a growing swamp. To be able to get crops to market, it means building very long roads on a growing swamp as well - remember that Russia suffers from a lack of internal rivers to convey agricultural products throughout it's vast geography. 2) Consequences of disturbances to fish stocks for northern communities - who are dependent on either fish directly, or seals and other species indirectly 3) Limited societal benefit of new hydrocarbon resources given the existing klepto-oligarchy - it's unlikely that new resources will be used to stabilise the broader community or social fabric. 4) Possibility that they cannot exploit said hydrocarbons due to global moratoriums or increased uptake in alternative energy sources 5) Broader geopolitical implications of social collapse of soviet satellites; some of which are currently heavily dependent on current rainfall patterns for cotton, wheat and other grains - Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc - if these countries go to the wall - what does that mean for the Russian state? It's likely that Russia would have to invest aggressively in shoring up the southern borders. 6) China; the eastern regions of Russia could be a tempting acquisition for China looking for new agricultural land or control of northern ports such as vladivostok as ice coverage decreases- further exacerbating pressures on the central Russian government.
  - gdy 7y ago
    Why would Russia want to weaken the Europe? The better they are doing the more they need Russian oil and gas.
    - raducu 7y ago
      Is the gas demand that elastic though? On the other hand a fractured/weak Europe means higher gas prices, no medling in russian affairs, less pressure by russian citizens drooling over the fence with their eyes fixed on european stability and wellfare, free hand to do as Russia pleases in ex Soviet states and so on.
      - gdy 7y ago
        By this logic weak Europe is equally beneficial to the US.
    - baq 7y ago
      Russia (well, Putin) wants to be Europe, not just profit from or own it.
beerandt 7y ago
There may be a point where such a project is appropriate, I'm just saying we're nowhere near that point. Such a risk is not something to be done preemptively, no matter how imminent.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Comments like this sound like "global warming isn't really a serious problem yet, so the only acceptable way to deal with it is to agree to my demands unconditionally - those alternatives are just too risky" to me.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I'm looking at it the other way- the risks of such a project are that big.
    - DennisP 7y ago
      Not all that much risk, since the shade could be eliminated almost immediately by simply rotating each element ninety degrees. The plan also requires a certain amount of stationkeeping, probably with solar sails, and if you can do that then you can also move the elements out of the way of the sun entirely, with a little time.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        1) That assumes complexity not accounted for in cost, weight, or deployability. It's one thing to deploy a bunch of dumb disks. It's entirely another to deploy trillions of steerable drones. It's several orders of magnitude beyond what was suggested. 2) It sort of misses the point- that might address the known-unknowns of the primary effect (solar radiation hitting Earth). It does nothing to address unknown-unknowns or even secondary or tertiary effects. The mere presence of the shields might block solar wind, distort Earth's magnetic field, reflect / refocus cosmic radiation, amplify affect of solar flares, interfere with radio or satellite communication... We just don't know. And the stakes are too big, even compared to worst case global warming. The bigger the potential impact a project has, the better prepared you should be to undo or mitigate it, before it causes problems worse than the ones it's meant to fix. I don't see that here.

willis936 7y ago

I think if there are not short term economic consequences to global warming then there will not be any solutions that get resources. This isn’t a wild speculation so much as it is the status quo.

raducu 7y ago
Russia will benefit greatly by global warming, it also relies on oil exports, also benefit vy weakening Europe with an inflow of climatic reffugees, has incredible incentives to actively make it happen.
- fenk85 7y ago
  It will not * that good black chernozem soul which makes up the Russian breadbasket would turn into desert in south of this region, while in the north the soil is too poor * mass forest fires would choke the air * melting permafrost would destroy existing badly maintained infrastructure and cities If Russia is hoping for positives out of climate change they are in for a surprise
  - raducu 7y ago
    Maybe I was just regurgitating what the youtube channel Caspian Report was saying, but I think he suggested that Russia could just do agriculture up north and it would have the northern ocean open for sailing all year long and acces to hidrocarbons there.
    - arbitrary_name 7y ago
      Thinking deeply about it, would it actually lead to better outcomes for Russia? Risks 1) Social destabilization driven by collapse of southern agricultural communities and their migration northward. Keep in mind that already the northern communities are being heavily impacted by the thaw of the permafrost that many cities and towns are built on - to establish more infrastructure means building on a growing swamp. To be able to get crops to market, it means building very long roads on a growing swamp as well - remember that Russia suffers from a lack of internal rivers to convey agricultural products throughout it's vast geography. 2) Consequences of disturbances to fish stocks for northern communities - who are dependent on either fish directly, or seals and other species indirectly 3) Limited societal benefit of new hydrocarbon resources given the existing klepto-oligarchy - it's unlikely that new resources will be used to stabilise the broader community or social fabric. 4) Possibility that they cannot exploit said hydrocarbons due to global moratoriums or increased uptake in alternative energy sources 5) Broader geopolitical implications of social collapse of soviet satellites; some of which are currently heavily dependent on current rainfall patterns for cotton, wheat and other grains - Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc - if these countries go to the wall - what does that mean for the Russian state? It's likely that Russia would have to invest aggressively in shoring up the southern borders. 6) China; the eastern regions of Russia could be a tempting acquisition for China looking for new agricultural land or control of northern ports such as vladivostok as ice coverage decreases- further exacerbating pressures on the central Russian government.
- gdy 7y ago
  Why would Russia want to weaken the Europe? The better they are doing the more they need Russian oil and gas.
  - raducu 7y ago
    Is the gas demand that elastic though? On the other hand a fractured/weak Europe means higher gas prices, no medling in russian affairs, less pressure by russian citizens drooling over the fence with their eyes fixed on european stability and wellfare, free hand to do as Russia pleases in ex Soviet states and so on.
    - gdy 7y ago
      By this logic weak Europe is equally beneficial to the US.
  - baq 7y ago
    Russia (well, Putin) wants to be Europe, not just profit from or own it.

beerandt 7y ago

There may be a point where such a project is appropriate, I'm just saying we're nowhere near that point. Such a risk is not something to be done preemptively, no matter how imminent.

DuskStar 7y ago
Comments like this sound like "global warming isn't really a serious problem yet, so the only acceptable way to deal with it is to agree to my demands unconditionally - those alternatives are just too risky" to me.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I'm looking at it the other way- the risks of such a project are that big.
  - DennisP 7y ago
    Not all that much risk, since the shade could be eliminated almost immediately by simply rotating each element ninety degrees. The plan also requires a certain amount of stationkeeping, probably with solar sails, and if you can do that then you can also move the elements out of the way of the sun entirely, with a little time.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      1) That assumes complexity not accounted for in cost, weight, or deployability. It's one thing to deploy a bunch of dumb disks. It's entirely another to deploy trillions of steerable drones. It's several orders of magnitude beyond what was suggested. 2) It sort of misses the point- that might address the known-unknowns of the primary effect (solar radiation hitting Earth). It does nothing to address unknown-unknowns or even secondary or tertiary effects. The mere presence of the shields might block solar wind, distort Earth's magnetic field, reflect / refocus cosmic radiation, amplify affect of solar flares, interfere with radio or satellite communication... We just don't know. And the stakes are too big, even compared to worst case global warming. The bigger the potential impact a project has, the better prepared you should be to undo or mitigate it, before it causes problems worse than the ones it's meant to fix. I don't see that here.