4 ms·

Planet scale geoengineering that may or may not be possible with existing or near technology. Or Just blast sulfur, calcium carbonate, or some other particles

Planet scale geoengineering that may or may not be possible with existing or near technology. Or Just blast sulfur, calcium carbonate, or some other particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. Elon Musk could do this by himself. Single digit billions with technology we've perfected decades ago. Waiting patiently for a a majority of people to realize it's the only realistic path to buy us enough time to transition to renewables.

ElijahLynn 4y ago
The article address that a bit, bubbles are safer and reversible if needed. The particle injection is not reversible.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Bubbles are not safe. Reversing it partway is far worse than not starting. Even starting would be disastrous, to the exact extent it distracted from doing something that works. We know what works: cut CO2 emission. Nothing else does.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  Particles don’t last long enough to consider reversing it. We would have to keep launching more of them into the stratosphere indefinitely. The only point is to buy us time, not permanently change anything.
jimmygrapes 4y ago
Blocking or reflecting sunlight does not seem like a great path forward for wind or solar energy, considering that both require that sunlight that's being blocked. Hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, maybe. Until we get a nice little ice age and the water freezes too much. Maybe a better solution here would be to just accept that civilization as we know it needs to adapt rather than forcing the entire planetary ecosphere to adapt around us.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  Great. We just need global cooperation to adapt. Standing by waiting since the 80s. Meanwhile, global warming will outright benefit some nations, such as Russia. The idea of global cooperation is comically naive
status200 4y ago
The article mentions the fatal flaw with the particle technique, but may I request your source that leads you to believe that we have "perfected" deploying particles in our atmosphere on a global scale? Also, please don't give Elon any ideas, he already has enough futile showboats.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It utterly fails to mention the fatal flaw of both schemes. Neither addresses the problem, which then carries on until the ocean ecosystem, thence civilization, collapses.
  - parkingrift 4y ago
    It will keep the planet habitable and buy us time to solve the fundamental problems. We don’t have the technology or global political will to reverse or even slow global warming. We’re not even close. We need more time. Ignoring this reality will just guarantee our collapse. Geoengineering gives us a plausible way out. The alternative is people continuing to clamor for global cooperation, a comically naive goal that has gained near to zero traction in 40 years.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Renewables are radically cheaper than any other source of power, ever. Scrapping the old stuff and building out renewables is cheaper than keeping any of it. We don't need to achieve "global cooperation". We just need to each act in our own self interest, as quickly as we can. It is the only strategy that can work. It still might not work. But directing resources elsewhere makes it happen slower. Too slow is the same as failure.
oifjsidjf 4y ago
It's scary how little you think about the unintended consequences of messing with a complex system like that. This truly is horrible reductionism ala "it will be fine, NOTHING will go wrong, TRUST me".
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  It's pure hubris and ego. If these kinds of people ever do gain the power they crave, that will destroy us more surely than any climate issue.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  It’s scary how many people think we have a way out of global warming that doesn’t involve a scheme like this. We’re perpetually 30 years away from carbon neutrality which is actually comically far from reversing or even slowing runaway warming. Your reaction is why I mentioned that I will patiently wait for others to give up on this absurd idea of saving the planet with renewables. We need more time. Geoengineering is the only way to buy us that time. Cheers to waiting for more to come to this realization. Let’s talk again in 2030.

ElijahLynn 4y ago

The article address that a bit, bubbles are safer and reversible if needed. The particle injection is not reversible.

ncmncm 4y ago
Bubbles are not safe. Reversing it partway is far worse than not starting. Even starting would be disastrous, to the exact extent it distracted from doing something that works. We know what works: cut CO2 emission. Nothing else does.
parkingrift 4y ago
Particles don’t last long enough to consider reversing it. We would have to keep launching more of them into the stratosphere indefinitely. The only point is to buy us time, not permanently change anything.

jimmygrapes 4y ago

Blocking or reflecting sunlight does not seem like a great path forward for wind or solar energy, considering that both require that sunlight that's being blocked. Hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, maybe. Until we get a nice little ice age and the water freezes too much. Maybe a better solution here would be to just accept that civilization as we know it needs to adapt rather than forcing the entire planetary ecosphere to adapt around us.

parkingrift 4y ago
Great. We just need global cooperation to adapt. Standing by waiting since the 80s. Meanwhile, global warming will outright benefit some nations, such as Russia. The idea of global cooperation is comically naive

status200 4y ago

The article mentions the fatal flaw with the particle technique, but may I request your source that leads you to believe that we have "perfected" deploying particles in our atmosphere on a global scale? Also, please don't give Elon any ideas, he already has enough futile showboats.

ncmncm 4y ago
It utterly fails to mention the fatal flaw of both schemes. Neither addresses the problem, which then carries on until the ocean ecosystem, thence civilization, collapses.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  It will keep the planet habitable and buy us time to solve the fundamental problems. We don’t have the technology or global political will to reverse or even slow global warming. We’re not even close. We need more time. Ignoring this reality will just guarantee our collapse. Geoengineering gives us a plausible way out. The alternative is people continuing to clamor for global cooperation, a comically naive goal that has gained near to zero traction in 40 years.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Renewables are radically cheaper than any other source of power, ever. Scrapping the old stuff and building out renewables is cheaper than keeping any of it. We don't need to achieve "global cooperation". We just need to each act in our own self interest, as quickly as we can. It is the only strategy that can work. It still might not work. But directing resources elsewhere makes it happen slower. Too slow is the same as failure.

oifjsidjf 4y ago

It's scary how little you think about the unintended consequences of messing with a complex system like that. This truly is horrible reductionism ala "it will be fine, NOTHING will go wrong, TRUST me".

nathanaldensr 4y ago
It's pure hubris and ego. If these kinds of people ever do gain the power they crave, that will destroy us more surely than any climate issue.
parkingrift 4y ago
It’s scary how many people think we have a way out of global warming that doesn’t involve a scheme like this. We’re perpetually 30 years away from carbon neutrality which is actually comically far from reversing or even slowing runaway warming. Your reaction is why I mentioned that I will patiently wait for others to give up on this absurd idea of saving the planet with renewables. We need more time. Geoengineering is the only way to buy us that time. Cheers to waiting for more to come to this realization. Let’s talk again in 2030.