8 ms·

This isn't a Mexican company; the person behind it is. > Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former director of hardware at Y Combinator ... he started tink

This isn't a Mexican company; the person behind it is. > Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former director of hardware at Y Combinator ... he started tinkering with releasing sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere with balloons, raised venture capital to fund the startup, and brought on co-founder Andrew Song to manage sales. Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? After they were forced to stop, > In a mea culpa blog post published on Wednesday, the startup acknowledged it had barged forward. > "We appreciate the Mexican government's concern for protecting communities and the natural environment and support their call for scientific expertise and oversight of climate intervention activities. We also appreciate their concern for national and local engagement and regret that we had failed to take this into consideration sooner," Make Sunsets said. Who believes that? Who would guess that the people of the community and country might want to control experiments in their atmosephere?

marginalia_nu 4y ago
> [...] experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? Yeah I'm not sure that's how the atmosphere works. Surely this stuff would diffuse and affect the atmosphere globally.
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  Okay... who would judge those who want to do experiments to the global atmosphere from their country. (though as another user points out this would diffuse globally, but still be concentrated locally)
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    That's the big question.
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      That's not the question. The answer to that is Mexico, the article is about Mexico judging it and "cracking down". The GP was clarifying the context. You refused to talk about the meat of their argument and instead opted to be pedantic about how the atmosphere diffuses.
      - marginalia_nu 4y ago
        No it doesn't matter. Where they do this is entirely beside the point. They can do it from international waters. Everyone is affected. Laws are arbitrary.
        MrOwnPut 4y ago
        So laws are arbitrary and if something is arbitrary it doesn't matter, so if anyone does anything that is arbitrary (in your mind) it doesn't matter? Let's back up for a second. What percentage would you say this experiment has in being correct?
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        Of course it matters.
        MrOwnPut 4y ago
        I updated my post with a few questions to clarify your stance. The point of the question is to ask whether you think this has 100% chance of not causing issues. The next step of course would then be to say, okay if it isn't 100% safe then do you support Mexico's right to say, "hey this could cause us or the world harm, stop it".
        TylerE 4y ago
        I think what he means is that Mexico would be just as effected if they did in the ocean, or in India or wherever.
  - AlexAltea 4y ago
    Every local action has global consequences. Throwing a dead battery into a dump -> Battery acid gets dragged by the rain -> Polluting a river -> Flows polluting a sea -> Currents polluting all oceans. Of course effects become smaller as scope grows, but still in many instances it's measurable, see Fukushima.
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      Yes, you're missing my point to the GP, and he missed the point to the GGP. It's in Mexico's right to stop experiments on the global atmosphere from their country.
      - AlexAltea 4y ago
        I didn't miss anybody's point. Your comment made me realize something that I wanted to share.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        I doubt either the globalists or the “every country is sovereign”-ists disagree with your last paragraph. I think it’s also in Mexico’s right to authorize prototype experiments that could be potentially scaled up to have a material global effect.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - schiffern 4y ago
        Didn't miss the point, just observing how it's an irrelevant and counterproductive distraction to the main issue. That sort of thing matters to some people. As for the rest. I fully agree with sokoloff's reply.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    >Okay... who would judge those who want to do experiments to the global atmosphere from their country. Replace "experiments" with the more general/relevant "atmosphere modifications," which includes pollution for amoral profit motive. What makes "experiments" special? Is that reasoning morally justifiable, given the many millions who will die in the "business as usual" case?
- ovi256 4y ago
  Partially diffuse globally, partially come down in a downplume. The area under the downplume gets the maximum cooling effect.
  - ttyprintk 4y ago
    I think the area shadowed by the downplume would get the most cooling, while the area downwind of the downplume gets the fallout. Baja is dependent on fishing along the coast, though not in the hotter months.
- schiffern 4y ago
  If nations don't have national sovereignty over their slice of the atmosphere, then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime? [For clarity I don't particularly disagree with this stance, but my mostly-overlooked point is that:] If people really think this, why is it that (on HN in particular) we overwhelmingly hear this point made in the context of geoengineering, and not for regular old pollution? Isn't that a double standard? The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters. Worse: if your intent is to externalize costs onto everyone else, that's fine and dandy, but if your intent is to fix those externalities then you're the asshole, because reasons. It does seem to be a common thread - not just on HN, but HN does attract entrepreneurs and aspirants thereof, who in turn tend to skew religiously capitalist, so it's unsurprising that it's a bit more pronounced here. The sort of attitude on display transcends climate denialism and jumps straight to what seems to be climate hostility: "I have a God-given right to harm everyone around me to make a quick buck and fuck you for daring to do anything about it". The reaction to geoengineering is consistent with reaction to ecoactivism: hostile, and demonstrating an absense of self-awareness. Yes, geoengineers and ecoactivists alike can be misguided sometimes; no, that does not mean they're in any way the "bad guys" for daring to at least try to do something about the Cult of Capital destroying the Earth in the name of the Holy Profit.
  - mrpopo 4y ago
    It's also brought up for "regular old pollution". Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal. South Korean associations are making efforts in China to stop them from building incinerators on their east coast, outside of Beijing. You probably are just not living in an area of concern.
    - iso1631 4y ago
- Arnt 4y ago
  They're releasing something into the atmosphere, then measuring its effect before it disperses so much that it loses its measurable effect. That means that it affects people locally, not globally. (It's about 1kg of materials released.)
- eloff 4y ago
  The plan was to release 10 to 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. I don’t think it would affect anything at all. The experiment seems of questionable value, but it doesn’t seem dangerous.
  - dahart 4y ago
    The question isn’t whether 3 balloons of 500 grams of sulphur dioxide is dangerous, the question is should rando startups be allowed to put toxic chemicals in our air. What if they decided their experiment of 1.5kb of sulphur dioxide was a success? What is the obvious next step? 1500kg, 1.5Mg? Ten more startups doing the same, realizing whoever gets there first will make money?
    - eloff 4y ago
      Sulfur dioxide is naturally occurring, released by volcanoes in massive amounts. In these kinds of qualities it’s pretty safe by comparison. I think we’re being way too cautious when it comes to geoengineering, at a time when we should be aggressively testing hypotheses to get some actual options on the table.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        Arsenic, uranium, almost everything is naturally occurring. Forest fires and, as you note, volcanoes are naturally occurring. That doesn't make them safe.
        eloff 4y ago
        Being natural does not make it safe. It is however a common food additive, and we’re talking very small quantities here. It’s really not the “toxic chemicals” as claimed by the OP.
        dahart 4y ago
        FWIW, I was just quoting Wikipedia. Sulfur dioxide is a “toxic gas”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
- sbaiddn 4y ago
  Eventually. Until then its cloud over Mexico.
- otikik 4y ago
  Farts also eventually dissipate in the atmosphere. I still would prefer that they don’t get released in my immediate vicinity.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  Mexico City has a significant problem with air pollution because the mountains enclose most of it, like a bowl. Perfect place to make their atmospheric experiments because diffusion is slower.
titaniczero 4y ago
The atmosphere now has borders?
- andyjsong 4y ago
  We deploy 20km up. We spoke with people at Project Loon and the only orgs that are in that space is the military and they don't want you to know they're up there.
manholio 4y ago
Why yes, what could possibly go wrong by releasing the main constituent of acid rain in an haphazard attempt to cool down the Earth, a problem itself created by releasing uncontrolled quantities of other pollutants. Sounds like the setup for a dystopia.
- schiffern 4y ago
  We're long past dystopia, then. 500 grams of SO2 is released by a 737 flying less than 100 miles.
  - jaggs 4y ago
    That's something of a straw man. Air pollution is one thing. Deliberate experimentation with hazardous emissions calculated to be scaled up on a global level with impacts on us all, is a completely different thing.
    - schiffern 4y ago
      You have it exactly backwards. Your semantics game is the "straw man." The atmosphere doesn't care what we call it, only what we dump in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944 >calculated to be scaled up on a global level You say that like polluting industries don't try to scale up to a global level.
      - jaggs 4y ago
        Industries don't try to scale up pollution. The pollution is a by-product of trying to scale up profits. And one wrong doesn't make the other a right.
        schiffern 4y ago
        >Industries don't try to scale up pollution. The pollution is a by-product of trying to scale up profits. There's that word "try" again... My exact point is that the atmosphere doesn't care about intent. It cares about emissions. Humans care about intent. That's fine, but apparently the rule here is that you can hurt people (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help people! My argument is that maybe we should rethink this ethical schema.
schiffern 4y ago
> so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? So it's okay to do experiments with the atmosphere, as long as you re-brand them as "pollution" instead of as "experiments"? (and of course, organizationally separate the scientists performing the data collection/analysis steps)
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  You answered his question with another question. I believe your question is insinuating that pollution is branded as such and is really an experiment? I don't follow.. can you expand on that or clarify? But first please answer their question before shifting the conversation.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    No, my point is that the atmosphere doesn't care what we call it. It's just a semantics game. People care, but we do it in such a backwards way that the rule is apparently "you can hurt (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help!" Clearly, if anything, the move is to re-brand geoengineering as "normal pollution". It wouldn't even be hard: every 737 emits 500 grams of SO2 in less than 100 miles, and not a peep!
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      You still didn't answer the original question posed to you by the GP, so I don't know your stance or line of reasoning. And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps. These experiments / solar geo-engineering / terraforming may hurt. There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?
      - schiffern 4y ago
        My stance is that GP is asking misleading questions that distract from the main issue (all-source emissions). > And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps. The critical word is "try." Apparently, the rule is that your intent is all that matters. If you're trying to profit, it's pollution and it's fine. If you intend to help, all hell breaks loose. Exxon can burn down the world, but utter the words "geoengineering" and you can't so much as swat a fly. I'm not saying this is logical or correct. I'm just saying that these appear to be the rules as constrained by (not always rational) public opinion. > There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree? There are justifications both "for" and "against" (like any complex real-world issue), but the public debate has been extremely skewed.
bitL 4y ago
Next stop: international waters.
irthomasthomas 4y ago
Why don't they just stick to Colorado, where most other weather modification programs are run? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380470
- OtomotO 4y ago
  Can you divide the effects from each other? So if project A does something, what if it influences project B?
  - irthomasthomas 4y ago
    The signal is so weak, anyway, that's it's practically impossible to decide cause and affect. I think it's mentioned in that article that they start with an area that's already got some rain or snow clouds and try to boost their output by a few points and hope that a trend emerges over time. Also, they do these on a small local scale, like spraying this morning to boost the rain this afternoon.
- rcme 4y ago
  You need a permit in Colorado and the projects seem related to snow generation, which makes sense given that skiing is a huge industry for the state.
- schiffern 4y ago
  > Colorado, where most other weather modification programs are run Are you sure? That claim doesn't appear in the linked article. Here's the official list of projects in the US: https://library.noaa.gov/Collections/Digital-Collections/Weather-Modification-Project-Reports https://library.noaa.gov/Collections/Digital-Collections/Wea...
blippitybleep 4y ago
I think I’ve had about enough of venture capitalists. It’s tiring it this point.
zeckalpha 4y ago
Compare the emissions to driving a car, flying a plane, or launching a rocket... or a volcano
hinkley 4y ago
See also Monsanto testing gene spliced corn, on a plateau, above landrace corn. Mexico takes its corn seriously, and cross breeding with patented corn would either be disastrous or force the Mexican government into voiding patent treaties. I believe the Willamette Valley in Oregon, which grows most of the grass seed for NA, as well as exports, officially told GMO researchers that they could fuck right off.
BurningFrog 4y ago
The geoengineering goal here is to release the particles into the stratosphere, which is at 10-30 km altitude, and not generally breathed by the people on the ground. Let's not pretend that releasing 500g of sulfur dioxide there has any impact on people on the ground.
- mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
  then maybe it should be done in america, mexico has zero obligation to allow experimentation in their atmosphere.
- Teever 4y ago
  If it has no effect, why are they bothering to do it? Does releasing 500g of co2 have any impact on tbe people on the ground?
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Because the have VConey, need to show traction and sell you "cooling credits" in their web shop. So every ounce of PR, positive or negative, helps.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    I think the intention is to test the release mechanism, and maybe the immediate blocking effect at the site.
andyjsong 4y ago
Andrew Song, Co-Founder of Make Sunsets here. > Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? After they were forced to stop, We chose Mexico as our initial launch site because deployment in the tropics have greater cooling per gram via increased particle residence time [1] (another source)[2]. Luke also bought land in Mexico a year ago prior to starting Make Sunsets to build his primary residence. The company was incorporated in October 2022. The US/Mexico does not have a ban on deploying sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, if there was, all commercial air flights would be banned as well. Here is the original press release from the Mexican government: https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/prensa/la-experimentacion-con-geoingenieria-solar-no-sera-permitida-en-mexico https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/prensa/la-experimentacion-con-ge... and our response: https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/mexico https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/mexico [1] https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-12131_presentation.pdf https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-12131_prese... [2] https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Sensitivity%20of%20Aerosol%20Distribution%20and%20Climate%20Response%20to%20Stratospheric%20SO2%20Injection%20Locations.pdf https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Sensitiv...
- daqhris 4y ago
  Thanks for clearing up this controversial topic and showing up to give a detailed explanation. Without your intervention, I would have kept some speculations as reasonable opinions.
  - andyjsong 4y ago
    Just read some academic papers and realize that anything we're doing right now to reverse global is a little too late. CDR, DAC, fusion, planting trees, solar, wind, nuclear, and nations coming together to decide we need to deploy stratospheric aerosol injection are all decades away while the planet warms 0.1C every decade. We deeply respect what scientists have been sounding alarm for years, but more people are worried about putting food on table than catastrophic weather events that might happen in the future. Totally open to hearing another way to slow down global warming that isn't as fucking crazy as dimming the sun, but we're all addicted to burning dead dinos. Unless we put the environment over profits and scale up CO2 sucking tech, our children will have incredibly shitty lives.

marginalia_nu 4y ago

> [...] experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? Yeah I'm not sure that's how the atmosphere works. Surely this stuff would diffuse and affect the atmosphere globally.

MrOwnPut 4y ago
Okay... who would judge those who want to do experiments to the global atmosphere from their country. (though as another user points out this would diffuse globally, but still be concentrated locally)
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  That's the big question.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    That's not the question. The answer to that is Mexico, the article is about Mexico judging it and "cracking down". The GP was clarifying the context. You refused to talk about the meat of their argument and instead opted to be pedantic about how the atmosphere diffuses.
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      No it doesn't matter. Where they do this is entirely beside the point. They can do it from international waters. Everyone is affected. Laws are arbitrary.
      - MrOwnPut 4y ago
        So laws are arbitrary and if something is arbitrary it doesn't matter, so if anyone does anything that is arbitrary (in your mind) it doesn't matter? Let's back up for a second. What percentage would you say this experiment has in being correct?
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        Of course it matters.
        MrOwnPut 4y ago
        I updated my post with a few questions to clarify your stance. The point of the question is to ask whether you think this has 100% chance of not causing issues. The next step of course would then be to say, okay if it isn't 100% safe then do you support Mexico's right to say, "hey this could cause us or the world harm, stop it".
        TylerE 4y ago
        I think what he means is that Mexico would be just as effected if they did in the ocean, or in India or wherever.
- AlexAltea 4y ago
  Every local action has global consequences. Throwing a dead battery into a dump -> Battery acid gets dragged by the rain -> Polluting a river -> Flows polluting a sea -> Currents polluting all oceans. Of course effects become smaller as scope grows, but still in many instances it's measurable, see Fukushima.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    Yes, you're missing my point to the GP, and he missed the point to the GGP. It's in Mexico's right to stop experiments on the global atmosphere from their country.
    - AlexAltea 4y ago
      I didn't miss anybody's point. Your comment made me realize something that I wanted to share.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I doubt either the globalists or the “every country is sovereign”-ists disagree with your last paragraph. I think it’s also in Mexico’s right to authorize prototype experiments that could be potentially scaled up to have a material global effect.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - schiffern 4y ago
      Didn't miss the point, just observing how it's an irrelevant and counterproductive distraction to the main issue. That sort of thing matters to some people. As for the rest. I fully agree with sokoloff's reply.
- schiffern 4y ago
  >Okay... who would judge those who want to do experiments to the global atmosphere from their country. Replace "experiments" with the more general/relevant "atmosphere modifications," which includes pollution for amoral profit motive. What makes "experiments" special? Is that reasoning morally justifiable, given the many millions who will die in the "business as usual" case?
ovi256 4y ago
Partially diffuse globally, partially come down in a downplume. The area under the downplume gets the maximum cooling effect.
- ttyprintk 4y ago
  I think the area shadowed by the downplume would get the most cooling, while the area downwind of the downplume gets the fallout. Baja is dependent on fishing along the coast, though not in the hotter months.
schiffern 4y ago
If nations don't have national sovereignty over their slice of the atmosphere, then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime? [For clarity I don't particularly disagree with this stance, but my mostly-overlooked point is that:] If people really think this, why is it that (on HN in particular) we overwhelmingly hear this point made in the context of geoengineering, and not for regular old pollution? Isn't that a double standard? The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters. Worse: if your intent is to externalize costs onto everyone else, that's fine and dandy, but if your intent is to fix those externalities then you're the asshole, because reasons. It does seem to be a common thread - not just on HN, but HN does attract entrepreneurs and aspirants thereof, who in turn tend to skew religiously capitalist, so it's unsurprising that it's a bit more pronounced here. The sort of attitude on display transcends climate denialism and jumps straight to what seems to be climate hostility: "I have a God-given right to harm everyone around me to make a quick buck and fuck you for daring to do anything about it". The reaction to geoengineering is consistent with reaction to ecoactivism: hostile, and demonstrating an absense of self-awareness. Yes, geoengineers and ecoactivists alike can be misguided sometimes; no, that does not mean they're in any way the "bad guys" for daring to at least try to do something about the Cult of Capital destroying the Earth in the name of the Holy Profit.
- mrpopo 4y ago
  It's also brought up for "regular old pollution". Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal. South Korean associations are making efforts in China to stop them from building incinerators on their east coast, outside of Beijing. You probably are just not living in an area of concern.
  - iso1631 4y ago
Arnt 4y ago
They're releasing something into the atmosphere, then measuring its effect before it disperses so much that it loses its measurable effect. That means that it affects people locally, not globally. (It's about 1kg of materials released.)
eloff 4y ago
The plan was to release 10 to 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. I don’t think it would affect anything at all. The experiment seems of questionable value, but it doesn’t seem dangerous.
- dahart 4y ago
  The question isn’t whether 3 balloons of 500 grams of sulphur dioxide is dangerous, the question is should rando startups be allowed to put toxic chemicals in our air. What if they decided their experiment of 1.5kb of sulphur dioxide was a success? What is the obvious next step? 1500kg, 1.5Mg? Ten more startups doing the same, realizing whoever gets there first will make money?
  - eloff 4y ago
    Sulfur dioxide is naturally occurring, released by volcanoes in massive amounts. In these kinds of qualities it’s pretty safe by comparison. I think we’re being way too cautious when it comes to geoengineering, at a time when we should be aggressively testing hypotheses to get some actual options on the table.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Arsenic, uranium, almost everything is naturally occurring. Forest fires and, as you note, volcanoes are naturally occurring. That doesn't make them safe.
      - eloff 4y ago
        Being natural does not make it safe. It is however a common food additive, and we’re talking very small quantities here. It’s really not the “toxic chemicals” as claimed by the OP.
        dahart 4y ago
        FWIW, I was just quoting Wikipedia. Sulfur dioxide is a “toxic gas”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
sbaiddn 4y ago
Eventually. Until then its cloud over Mexico.
otikik 4y ago
Farts also eventually dissipate in the atmosphere. I still would prefer that they don’t get released in my immediate vicinity.
ASalazarMX 4y ago
Mexico City has a significant problem with air pollution because the mountains enclose most of it, like a bowl. Perfect place to make their atmospheric experiments because diffusion is slower.

titaniczero 4y ago

The atmosphere now has borders?

andyjsong 4y ago
We deploy 20km up. We spoke with people at Project Loon and the only orgs that are in that space is the military and they don't want you to know they're up there.

manholio 4y ago

Why yes, what could possibly go wrong by releasing the main constituent of acid rain in an haphazard attempt to cool down the Earth, a problem itself created by releasing uncontrolled quantities of other pollutants. Sounds like the setup for a dystopia.

schiffern 4y ago
We're long past dystopia, then. 500 grams of SO2 is released by a 737 flying less than 100 miles.
- jaggs 4y ago
  That's something of a straw man. Air pollution is one thing. Deliberate experimentation with hazardous emissions calculated to be scaled up on a global level with impacts on us all, is a completely different thing.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    You have it exactly backwards. Your semantics game is the "straw man." The atmosphere doesn't care what we call it, only what we dump in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944 >calculated to be scaled up on a global level You say that like polluting industries don't try to scale up to a global level.
    - jaggs 4y ago
      Industries don't try to scale up pollution. The pollution is a by-product of trying to scale up profits. And one wrong doesn't make the other a right.
      - schiffern 4y ago
        >Industries don't try to scale up pollution. The pollution is a by-product of trying to scale up profits. There's that word "try" again... My exact point is that the atmosphere doesn't care about intent. It cares about emissions. Humans care about intent. That's fine, but apparently the rule here is that you can hurt people (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help people! My argument is that maybe we should rethink this ethical schema.

schiffern 4y ago

> so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? So it's okay to do experiments with the atmosphere, as long as you re-brand them as "pollution" instead of as "experiments"? (and of course, organizationally separate the scientists performing the data collection/analysis steps)

MrOwnPut 4y ago
You answered his question with another question. I believe your question is insinuating that pollution is branded as such and is really an experiment? I don't follow.. can you expand on that or clarify? But first please answer their question before shifting the conversation.
- schiffern 4y ago
  No, my point is that the atmosphere doesn't care what we call it. It's just a semantics game. People care, but we do it in such a backwards way that the rule is apparently "you can hurt (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help!" Clearly, if anything, the move is to re-brand geoengineering as "normal pollution". It wouldn't even be hard: every 737 emits 500 grams of SO2 in less than 100 miles, and not a peep!
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    You still didn't answer the original question posed to you by the GP, so I don't know your stance or line of reasoning. And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps. These experiments / solar geo-engineering / terraforming may hurt. There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?
    - schiffern 4y ago
      My stance is that GP is asking misleading questions that distract from the main issue (all-source emissions). > And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps. The critical word is "try." Apparently, the rule is that your intent is all that matters. If you're trying to profit, it's pollution and it's fine. If you intend to help, all hell breaks loose. Exxon can burn down the world, but utter the words "geoengineering" and you can't so much as swat a fly. I'm not saying this is logical or correct. I'm just saying that these appear to be the rules as constrained by (not always rational) public opinion. > There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree? There are justifications both "for" and "against" (like any complex real-world issue), but the public debate has been extremely skewed.

bitL 4y ago

Next stop: international waters.

irthomasthomas 4y ago

Why don't they just stick to Colorado, where most other weather modification programs are run? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380470

OtomotO 4y ago
Can you divide the effects from each other? So if project A does something, what if it influences project B?
- irthomasthomas 4y ago
  The signal is so weak, anyway, that's it's practically impossible to decide cause and affect. I think it's mentioned in that article that they start with an area that's already got some rain or snow clouds and try to boost their output by a few points and hope that a trend emerges over time. Also, they do these on a small local scale, like spraying this morning to boost the rain this afternoon.
rcme 4y ago
You need a permit in Colorado and the projects seem related to snow generation, which makes sense given that skiing is a huge industry for the state.
schiffern 4y ago
> Colorado, where most other weather modification programs are run Are you sure? That claim doesn't appear in the linked article. Here's the official list of projects in the US: https://library.noaa.gov/Collections/Digital-Collections/Weather-Modification-Project-Reports https://library.noaa.gov/Collections/Digital-Collections/Wea...

blippitybleep 4y ago

I think I’ve had about enough of venture capitalists. It’s tiring it this point.

zeckalpha 4y ago

Compare the emissions to driving a car, flying a plane, or launching a rocket... or a volcano

hinkley 4y ago

See also Monsanto testing gene spliced corn, on a plateau, above landrace corn. Mexico takes its corn seriously, and cross breeding with patented corn would either be disastrous or force the Mexican government into voiding patent treaties. I believe the Willamette Valley in Oregon, which grows most of the grass seed for NA, as well as exports, officially told GMO researchers that they could fuck right off.

BurningFrog 4y ago

The geoengineering goal here is to release the particles into the stratosphere, which is at 10-30 km altitude, and not generally breathed by the people on the ground. Let's not pretend that releasing 500g of sulfur dioxide there has any impact on people on the ground.

mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
then maybe it should be done in america, mexico has zero obligation to allow experimentation in their atmosphere.
Teever 4y ago
If it has no effect, why are they bothering to do it? Does releasing 500g of co2 have any impact on tbe people on the ground?
- hef19898 4y ago
  Because the have VConey, need to show traction and sell you "cooling credits" in their web shop. So every ounce of PR, positive or negative, helps.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  I think the intention is to test the release mechanism, and maybe the immediate blocking effect at the site.

andyjsong 4y ago

Andrew Song, Co-Founder of Make Sunsets here. > Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? After they were forced to stop, We chose Mexico as our initial launch site because deployment in the tropics have greater cooling per gram via increased particle residence time [1] (another source)[2]. Luke also bought land in Mexico a year ago prior to starting Make Sunsets to build his primary residence. The company was incorporated in October 2022. The US/Mexico does not have a ban on deploying sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, if there was, all commercial air flights would be banned as well. Here is the original press release from the Mexican government: https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/prensa/la-experimentacion-con-geoingenieria-solar-no-sera-permitida-en-mexico https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/prensa/la-experimentacion-con-ge... and our response: https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/mexico https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/mexico [1] https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-12131_presentation.pdf https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-12131_prese... [2] https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Sensitivity%20of%20Aerosol%20Distribution%20and%20Climate%20Response%20to%20Stratospheric%20SO2%20Injection%20Locations.pdf https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Sensitiv...

daqhris 4y ago
Thanks for clearing up this controversial topic and showing up to give a detailed explanation. Without your intervention, I would have kept some speculations as reasonable opinions.
- andyjsong 4y ago
  Just read some academic papers and realize that anything we're doing right now to reverse global is a little too late. CDR, DAC, fusion, planting trees, solar, wind, nuclear, and nations coming together to decide we need to deploy stratospheric aerosol injection are all decades away while the planet warms 0.1C every decade. We deeply respect what scientists have been sounding alarm for years, but more people are worried about putting food on table than catastrophic weather events that might happen in the future. Totally open to hearing another way to slow down global warming that isn't as fucking crazy as dimming the sun, but we're all addicted to burning dead dinos. Unless we put the environment over profits and scale up CO2 sucking tech, our children will have incredibly shitty lives.