5 ms·
> [...] 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
by 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 agoOkay... 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 agoThat's the big question.
- MrOwnPut 4y agoThat'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 agoNo 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 agoSo 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 agoOf course it matters.
- MrOwnPut 4y agoI 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 agoI think what he means is that Mexico would be just as effected if they did in the ocean, or in India or wherever.
- MrOwnPut 4y agoI'm aware. But if it did cause issues it would concentrate in Mexico and dissipate globally. But what I'm asking them is.. do they believe it's in Mexico's right to ask a person to stop experimenting on the atmosphere (global or otherwise) from their country.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoIt may cause issues, it may not. It's so hard to know, we may not even know even if they do carry out these types of experiments.
- MrOwnPut 4y agoOkay, so we're at the next step. Do you support Mexico's decision to stop experiments on the atmosphere that may cause issues?
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
- mcv 4y agoIt's great that Mexico is stepping up and protect the atmosphere, which indeed impacts not just Mexico but everybody, but you're absolutely right that international waters are still a massive loophole in the laws of the world. Almost anything goes, there. Many ships still burn incredibly dirty fuel in international waters, simply because they can and it's cheaper. We really need better international regulation of these sort of commons.
- AlexAltea 4y agoEvery 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 agoYes, 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 agoI didn't miss anybody's point. Your comment made me realize something that I wanted to share.
- sokoloff 4y agoI 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 agoDidn'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 agoPartially diffuse globally, partially come down in a downplume. The area under the downplume gets the maximum cooling effect.
- ttyprintk 4y agoI 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 agoIf 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 agoIt'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 agoThey'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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoSulfur 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 agoArsenic, uranium, almost everything is naturally occurring. Forest fires and, as you note, volcanoes are naturally occurring. That doesn't make them safe.
- eloff 4y agoBeing 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 agoFWIW, 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 agoEventually. Until then its cloud over Mexico.
- otikik 4y agoFarts also eventually dissipate in the atmosphere. I still would prefer that they don’t get released in my immediate vicinity.
- ASalazarMX 4y agoMexico 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.