4 ms·

Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea; We’re Inching Toward It

3 points by Stratoscope 4y ago

Stratoscope 4y ago
https://archive.ph/GMu1K/ https://archive.ph/GMu1K/
Victerius 4y ago
The potential geopolitical consequences are huge. The United States could unilaterally initiate such a project, but developing countries such as China would be resolutely opposed. By dimming the planet, the U.S. would impose its own will on the rest of the world. The rest of the world, which includes nuclear powers hostile to the US, might be very, very angry. So that's something we would need to prepare for. Indeed, food-stressed countries like China and North Korea might view geoengineering as an existential threat to their societies.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  It could as easily be the other way around. The country that is most likely to do it is one that faces an existential threat from warming. The US is not that country, but Bangladesh may be and in fact Bangladesh is on the short list of countries most likely to do geoengineering. It is not fantastically expensive (say $2 B to develop a new airplane) and a country like that that faces mass casualty could either bankroll a project like that themselves or work together with other entities to make it happen. (say oil producers who have a lot of sulfur to get rid of)
- wmf 4y ago
  Check out Neal Stephenon's novel Termination Shock.
andrewclunn 4y ago
> Everyone studying solar geoengineering seems to agree that it’s a terrible thing. “The idea is outlandish,” Parker told me. Mohammed Mofizur Rahman, a Bangladeshi scientist who is one of Degrees Initiatives’ grantees, noted, “It’s crazy stuff.” So did the veteran Hungarian diplomat Janos Pasztor, who runs the Carnegie initiative on geoengineering governance, and said, “People should be suspicious.” The biggest threats from a slightly warmer planet are the unknowns. Such a drastic plan comes with perhaps more such unknowns. Sometimes I am comforted by human laziness and our default "do nothing" approach. At least then we will wait for tragedy to respond. This is not so horrific when an overzealous attitude might result in far more and greater tragedies.
galaxyLogic 4y ago
There is too much heat yet we also have an energy crisis. Shouldn't there be some way to combine the two? Heat-pump from warmer areas to colder ones? A more uniform temperature all over the planet? Just wondering
jaggs 4y ago
There is definitely an orchestrated attempt to get this Geo-engineering rubbish accepted as a sane option. Not sure who's behind it, but it's probably the same bad actors as the denialists. Follow the money. The real problem is this idea doesn't fix any of the underlying problem. We're still emitting more CO2e than the planet can handle. Dimming the planet will just kill the plants on which we rely for food. Stupid stupid idea.

3 points by Stratoscope 4y ago

https://archive.ph/GMu1K/ https://archive.ph/GMu1K/

The potential geopolitical consequences are huge. The United States could unilaterally initiate such a project, but developing countries such as China would be resolutely opposed. By dimming the planet, the U.S. would impose its own will on the rest of the world. The rest of the world, which includes nuclear powers hostile to the US, might be very, very angry. So that's something we would need to prepare for. Indeed, food-stressed countries like China and North Korea might view geoengineering as an existential threat to their societies.

PaulHoule 4y ago
It could as easily be the other way around. The country that is most likely to do it is one that faces an existential threat from warming. The US is not that country, but Bangladesh may be and in fact Bangladesh is on the short list of countries most likely to do geoengineering. It is not fantastically expensive (say $2 B to develop a new airplane) and a country like that that faces mass casualty could either bankroll a project like that themselves or work together with other entities to make it happen. (say oil producers who have a lot of sulfur to get rid of)
wmf 4y ago
Check out Neal Stephenon's novel Termination Shock.

andrewclunn 4y ago

> Everyone studying solar geoengineering seems to agree that it’s a terrible thing. “The idea is outlandish,” Parker told me. Mohammed Mofizur Rahman, a Bangladeshi scientist who is one of Degrees Initiatives’ grantees, noted, “It’s crazy stuff.” So did the veteran Hungarian diplomat Janos Pasztor, who runs the Carnegie initiative on geoengineering governance, and said, “People should be suspicious.” The biggest threats from a slightly warmer planet are the unknowns. Such a drastic plan comes with perhaps more such unknowns. Sometimes I am comforted by human laziness and our default "do nothing" approach. At least then we will wait for tragedy to respond. This is not so horrific when an overzealous attitude might result in far more and greater tragedies.

galaxyLogic 4y ago

There is too much heat yet we also have an energy crisis. Shouldn't there be some way to combine the two? Heat-pump from warmer areas to colder ones? A more uniform temperature all over the planet? Just wondering

jaggs 4y ago

There is definitely an orchestrated attempt to get this Geo-engineering rubbish accepted as a sane option. Not sure who's behind it, but it's probably the same bad actors as the denialists. Follow the money. The real problem is this idea doesn't fix any of the underlying problem. We're still emitting more CO2e than the planet can handle. Dimming the planet will just kill the plants on which we rely for food. Stupid stupid idea.