4 ms·
>How about the unintended consequences of historical emissions We already know about them, for the most part. They're known-knowns or known-unknowns. A sunsha
by beerandt 7y ago
>How about the unintended consequences of historical emissions
We already know about them, for the most part. They're known-knowns or known-unknowns.
A sunshade is a giant cloud of unknown-unknowns, plus whatever we think we might anticipate.
- mikepurvis 7y agoA physical shade is at least something you can take down if it's working badly. Contrast this with the deeply horrifying "geoengineering" proposals to spray millions of tons of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols
- TeMPOraL 7y ago"Deeply horrifying"? Given the current situation, it sounds to me more like "cool, can we start doing it already?".
- jerf 7y agoI assume that you are assuming it will work exactly as expected. Now that I've said that explicitly... how reasonable of an assumption does that sound?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoNah, it won't work exactly as expected. Nothing ever does. What matters is the distribution of possible consequences, viewed against the consequences we're trying to prevent. I think we should prepare to have this tech ready for use in case things get significantly worse in the next few decades. In the meantime, there are less risky geoengineering approaches also worth investigating and pushing up the TRL ladder.
- arbitrary_name 7y agoGiven that we have a history of 'start doing it already' that has led to: - ozone destruction - plastic pollution in the seas - potential runaway global warming brought on by fossil fuel use - use of DDT and neocotinoids - introduction of pest species that destroy ecologies do you really think we should be repeating the exact same approach? Because to me it sounds insane. Our thoughtless embrace of technology has caused much of our current problems - thoughtless embrace of technology will not magically solve them.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoIt also led to vaccines, detergents, anesthetics, fridges, microwave ovens, books, computers, and everything else man-made that now makes our lives better. So let's not cherry-pick. It's not our thoughtless embrace of technology that caused much of our problems - our problems were and are caused by people. In particular, by coordination problems. By our inability to do things together for long-term benefits. Our cherished democracy and free market only exacerbate this problem. So it's a good idea, IMO, to have a backup plan that doesn't require everyone to change their life styles - otherwise, in 50 years we may be wishing we had some prototyping done instead of it just being a theoretical idea.
- beerandt 7y agoBut we didn't, for example, first test vaccines on the entire world population simultaneously. The scale of the potential initial risk is critical. Not "what could happen?" but "If there's an unintended consequence, how many people (or how large of an area) could it affect? I think in the case of the solar shields, the risk is beyond what most of us can comprehend.
- beerandt 7y ago>can take down How? Collecting and disposing of 16 trillion objects is no small feat, before you consider fuel and energy to get there and back (or there and away).
- rpedela 7y agoI assume a sunshade in space would need to stay oriented as the Earth revolved around the Sun in order to deflect the sunlight. Therefore "take down" could simply mean disable the orientation equipment.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sobani 7y agoThat's the magic of the L1 Lagrangian point[1]; it takes basically no effort to stay there and it is exactly between the earth and the sun. Now L1 is an unstable point, so eventually the shades will drift out of position, but I imagine that will take a long time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point