3 ms·

Solar engineering is interesting because we've already observed it, for periods of a year or two after major volcanic eruptions. Those have put enough sulfur di

Solar engineering is interesting because we've already observed it, for periods of a year or two after major volcanic eruptions. Those have put enough sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere to block about one percent of sunlight, and disaster did not ensue. Since the sulfur dioxide goes away after a year or two, if it does start to cause a problem then you can simply stop emitting it. However, if you absolutely want to avoid potential impact on crops, another proposed method is to use a fleet of wind-driven ships, seeding low-lying clouds over the oceans. As for storing CO2 underground, there is one method that might work: pumping it into basalt formations, where it turns into rock in about a year. There are several pilot projects doing this.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
"want to avoid potential impact on crops" I'm not trying to demonize you pointing this out, but the semantics of this is interesting and typical of modern engineering, and it is in the same blind spot that economics has... No I'm not interested in crops as all. I don't care about farm yields, profitability, market fluctuations, food supply or all. I am concerned about the stability and long term survival of the biosphere. Yes, so that we don't go extinct, but more that that, so that we aren't living in domes in a no longer life supporting planet. Of course, engineering (and economics) are disciplines that can only work on the basis of things they can measure. Your statement basically refers to something that is measurable: crops and crop yields. But do we have economic or engineering measurements of the health of local and global biomes, beyond "wow they are a lot worse than they used to be"? Do we have any way of saying "this engineering project or economic policy will result in this degradation to the almost infinitely complex natures of habitats and biomes? We do not. We don't even really have good approximations. What is disturbing is that the approximations we DO have, like species extinctions, population declines in top species, qualitative observations of ecosystems, go functionally and absolutely ignored in policy, and by economics. Engineering, which produces the only hopes of technological solutions to our problems, still is riddled with the "make it work, don't worry that much about side effects" (well, since that's all the management and budget economics allow). I harp on engineers in this case because in my experience they are strangely conservative and republican, and by extension, anti-environment. I believe this is because every large engineering project has this stage: "The environmental impact review" Which is a huge blob of uncertainty, and engineers hate uncertainty. And therefore, by human nature, they hate the thing the uncertainty surrounds. And so they hate environmental reviews, and they hate the environment. This really really really needs to change.
- DennisP 5y ago
  I completely agree that we need to protect the whole biosphere, so please s/crops/biosphere, that was my bad. At this point, sadly, geoengineering may be a necessary part of protecting it. We're on the verge of positive feedbacks that could take things out of our hands, as the planet starts emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases with no more help from us. If all we do is stop emissions, there's a good chance that we'll cross that tipping point before we're done. It's possible that we've already crossed it.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    And I want to emphasize I wasn't trying to shit on you in particular. You gave great insight in your comment. How long does it take for the carbon to affix? This I imagine is like the olivine scheme?
    - DennisP 5y ago
      From the articles I've seen, about a year, maybe two. Similar chemistry to olivine I think, but the idea is to use more concentrated CO2 from DAC or fossil exhaust, and pump to basalt formations deep underground. The olivine schemes I've seen use it as beach sand, absorbing CO2 from air in a weathering process.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

"want to avoid potential impact on crops" I'm not trying to demonize you pointing this out, but the semantics of this is interesting and typical of modern engineering, and it is in the same blind spot that economics has... No I'm not interested in crops as all. I don't care about farm yields, profitability, market fluctuations, food supply or all. I am concerned about the stability and long term survival of the biosphere. Yes, so that we don't go extinct, but more that that, so that we aren't living in domes in a no longer life supporting planet. Of course, engineering (and economics) are disciplines that can only work on the basis of things they can measure. Your statement basically refers to something that is measurable: crops and crop yields. But do we have economic or engineering measurements of the health of local and global biomes, beyond "wow they are a lot worse than they used to be"? Do we have any way of saying "this engineering project or economic policy will result in this degradation to the almost infinitely complex natures of habitats and biomes? We do not. We don't even really have good approximations. What is disturbing is that the approximations we DO have, like species extinctions, population declines in top species, qualitative observations of ecosystems, go functionally and absolutely ignored in policy, and by economics. Engineering, which produces the only hopes of technological solutions to our problems, still is riddled with the "make it work, don't worry that much about side effects" (well, since that's all the management and budget economics allow). I harp on engineers in this case because in my experience they are strangely conservative and republican, and by extension, anti-environment. I believe this is because every large engineering project has this stage: "The environmental impact review" Which is a huge blob of uncertainty, and engineers hate uncertainty. And therefore, by human nature, they hate the thing the uncertainty surrounds. And so they hate environmental reviews, and they hate the environment. This really really really needs to change.

DennisP 5y ago
I completely agree that we need to protect the whole biosphere, so please s/crops/biosphere, that was my bad. At this point, sadly, geoengineering may be a necessary part of protecting it. We're on the verge of positive feedbacks that could take things out of our hands, as the planet starts emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases with no more help from us. If all we do is stop emissions, there's a good chance that we'll cross that tipping point before we're done. It's possible that we've already crossed it.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  And I want to emphasize I wasn't trying to shit on you in particular. You gave great insight in your comment. How long does it take for the carbon to affix? This I imagine is like the olivine scheme?
  - DennisP 5y ago
    From the articles I've seen, about a year, maybe two. Similar chemistry to olivine I think, but the idea is to use more concentrated CO2 from DAC or fossil exhaust, and pump to basalt formations deep underground. The olivine schemes I've seen use it as beach sand, absorbing CO2 from air in a weathering process.