5 ms·

Keep in mind that we can halt global warming any time we wish with about $5-10b worth of high altitude sulphur injections. That’s a per year price. EdwardTeller

Keep in mind that we can halt global warming any time we wish with about $5-10b worth of high altitude sulphur injections. That’s a per year price. EdwardTeller, inventor of the hydrogen bomb, introduced this idea. One classic argument against it is “termination shock” — ending the program could be disastrous. But I tend to think we should be researching the hell out of this topic. We’ve already geoengineered the whole earth already—it’s just that we ought to get good at it.

silverquiet 2y ago
The whole subject of anthropogenic climate change is just incredibly depressing the more you think about it. The only way I see to buy time (and I guess that’s all I can really hope for) would be as you suggest.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- startupsfail 2y ago
  5-10b sounds very expensive, no? It be cheaper to do something like Project Argus, using aging ICBMs. We already know that taxpayers are willing to pay for this (it’s history), so this sounds a lot more feasible than injecting aerosols for 5-10b or painting icebergs, etc. https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/1065/nuking-the-sky/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/1065/nukin... /s
BurningFrog 2y ago
One practical implementation is to mandate not removing the sulphur from airplane fuel. It would have to be tested to confirm the SO₂ gets added at the right altitude etc, but it's a very simple way to do it.
- alexose 2y ago
  It's not a perfect solution, since SO₂ in the lower parts of the atmosphere leads to acid rain. But, it might actually be viable if we find ourselves with a Republican-led United States. Easy to spin it as "getting government out of the way".
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    I'm grappling with whether the government mandating sulphur in fuel is the government getting out of the way.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      It sounds about as good an idea as requiring blended ethanol.
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        Odds are near-certain this is just going over my small head, but, FWIW you may have replied to the wrong thread.
        bobthepanda 2y ago
        I’m agreeing with you. The US currently has gasoline at 10% ethanol back when we thought biofuel was good against climate change. It isn’t, but now we can’t undo it because important voting blocs and donors depend on the subsidy. The same would happen with an sulfur mandate.
        refulgentis 2y ago
        Dear God. I'm 36, knew ethanol / corn was a huge deal in Iowa politics but had no idea that virtually all consumer gas is affected by it. Ty
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    If it's released high enough above the rain cycle in the stratosphere, it stays there reflecting sunlight for 1-2 years, and produce little or no acid rain. We know this because volcano eruptions does this, snd the effects have been studied: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects...
- lstodd 2y ago
  It wasn't airplane fuel. It was marine diesel / fuel oil for the bulk of it.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Or we could solve it without geoengineering for about $10T. 30TW of carbon free power, 300TWh of storage, convert vehicles to EV as they're replaced, planes to hydrogen, convert heating to heat pumps as they're replaced. $10T is about the cost of a major war. Eminently doable.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  The difference between 10T and 10B is approximately 10T. That’s pretty significant. And the 10T plan requires a great deal more participation from every single citizen. Good luck.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    The difference is that $10T is an investment that pays returns -- 30GW of power plants generate electricity for ~free once they're built. In the long run, that $10T will be paid back and then some. OTOH the $10B is an annual expense with no return.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      Sure, but you can spend 10B a year for a thousand years and you still won't be anywhere even approaching 10T in today money. We could just do both and it would cost the same, for all practical purposes. In any case, if those power plants have a great ROI, they will get built very quickly without having to be publicly subsidized.
- sillywalk 2y ago
  None of those actually reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and the amount of emissions to produce them are substantial.
audunw 2y ago
I also think we should work on geoengineering, but I also agree with those that fear that it will make us complacent and facilitate continued emissions. So I think the time we start geoengineering needs to be after we’ve seen some really huge impact of climate change that really makes people panic and imprints in a whole generation that cutting emissions needs to be their highest priority. We probably need to see some islands that are completely swallowed by the ocean and a summer without ice on the North Pole. I’m sure there’s some research we can do before that time. We need to be able to ramp up the measures really fast.
Aurornis 2y ago
> we can halt global warming any time we wish with about $5-10b worth of high altitude sulphur injections. Sulfur compounds are just one of several atmospheric aerosols considered, but it's not as simple as this comment would suggest. For one, the confidence about the ability of atmospheric aerosols (sulfur or otherwise) to halt global warming isn't very high. There are a lot of unknowns and the research is still in the early phases. It's a lot harder to get the aerosols in the right sizes and in the right place in the atmosphere for them to live long enough to do something. Second, there are downstream effects that need to be understood. Sulfur aerosols can deplete the ozone layer, for example. So maybe we get some short-term wins, but how much of that is offset by ozone layer depletion? Altering the solar dynamics of the upper atmosphere could also dramatically change the way air circulates up there, leading potentially to even more second order effects we don't understand. It's an interesting topic, but it's not a simple question of coming up with a few billion dollars to halt climate change. There are no simple solutions, unfortunately. Research should continue, but don't be misled into thinking that the only obstacle is coming up with an amount equivalent to a fraction of a percent of the US budget.
- dr_dshiv 2y ago
  There are lots of optimizations, I agree, but we know the mechanisms work because of all the natural experiments (volcanos). We definitely need the research—but no one thinks we don’t do this research because it is too expensive. It’s a third rail—and major litmus test. But it is a bit like the greens being antinuclear. If you really want to preserve biodiversity and prevent massive climate shifts, why make your mechanism of action human morality? “If we can merely engineer our way out of global warming, then humans won’t get what’s surely due.” Something like that, if you know what I mean.

silverquiet 2y ago

The whole subject of anthropogenic climate change is just incredibly depressing the more you think about it. The only way I see to buy time (and I guess that’s all I can really hope for) would be as you suggest.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
startupsfail 2y ago
5-10b sounds very expensive, no? It be cheaper to do something like Project Argus, using aging ICBMs. We already know that taxpayers are willing to pay for this (it’s history), so this sounds a lot more feasible than injecting aerosols for 5-10b or painting icebergs, etc. https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/1065/nuking-the-sky/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/1065/nukin... /s

BurningFrog 2y ago

One practical implementation is to mandate not removing the sulphur from airplane fuel. It would have to be tested to confirm the SO₂ gets added at the right altitude etc, but it's a very simple way to do it.

alexose 2y ago
It's not a perfect solution, since SO₂ in the lower parts of the atmosphere leads to acid rain. But, it might actually be viable if we find ourselves with a Republican-led United States. Easy to spin it as "getting government out of the way".
- refulgentis 2y ago
  I'm grappling with whether the government mandating sulphur in fuel is the government getting out of the way.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    It sounds about as good an idea as requiring blended ethanol.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      Odds are near-certain this is just going over my small head, but, FWIW you may have replied to the wrong thread.
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        I’m agreeing with you. The US currently has gasoline at 10% ethanol back when we thought biofuel was good against climate change. It isn’t, but now we can’t undo it because important voting blocs and donors depend on the subsidy. The same would happen with an sulfur mandate.
        refulgentis 2y ago
        Dear God. I'm 36, knew ethanol / corn was a huge deal in Iowa politics but had no idea that virtually all consumer gas is affected by it. Ty
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  If it's released high enough above the rain cycle in the stratosphere, it stays there reflecting sunlight for 1-2 years, and produce little or no acid rain. We know this because volcano eruptions does this, snd the effects have been studied: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects...
lstodd 2y ago
It wasn't airplane fuel. It was marine diesel / fuel oil for the bulk of it.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Or we could solve it without geoengineering for about $10T. 30TW of carbon free power, 300TWh of storage, convert vehicles to EV as they're replaced, planes to hydrogen, convert heating to heat pumps as they're replaced. $10T is about the cost of a major war. Eminently doable.

rootusrootus 2y ago
The difference between 10T and 10B is approximately 10T. That’s pretty significant. And the 10T plan requires a great deal more participation from every single citizen. Good luck.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The difference is that $10T is an investment that pays returns -- 30GW of power plants generate electricity for ~free once they're built. In the long run, that $10T will be paid back and then some. OTOH the $10B is an annual expense with no return.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    Sure, but you can spend 10B a year for a thousand years and you still won't be anywhere even approaching 10T in today money. We could just do both and it would cost the same, for all practical purposes. In any case, if those power plants have a great ROI, they will get built very quickly without having to be publicly subsidized.
sillywalk 2y ago
None of those actually reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and the amount of emissions to produce them are substantial.

audunw 2y ago

I also think we should work on geoengineering, but I also agree with those that fear that it will make us complacent and facilitate continued emissions. So I think the time we start geoengineering needs to be after we’ve seen some really huge impact of climate change that really makes people panic and imprints in a whole generation that cutting emissions needs to be their highest priority. We probably need to see some islands that are completely swallowed by the ocean and a summer without ice on the North Pole. I’m sure there’s some research we can do before that time. We need to be able to ramp up the measures really fast.

Aurornis 2y ago

> we can halt global warming any time we wish with about $5-10b worth of high altitude sulphur injections. Sulfur compounds are just one of several atmospheric aerosols considered, but it's not as simple as this comment would suggest. For one, the confidence about the ability of atmospheric aerosols (sulfur or otherwise) to halt global warming isn't very high. There are a lot of unknowns and the research is still in the early phases. It's a lot harder to get the aerosols in the right sizes and in the right place in the atmosphere for them to live long enough to do something. Second, there are downstream effects that need to be understood. Sulfur aerosols can deplete the ozone layer, for example. So maybe we get some short-term wins, but how much of that is offset by ozone layer depletion? Altering the solar dynamics of the upper atmosphere could also dramatically change the way air circulates up there, leading potentially to even more second order effects we don't understand. It's an interesting topic, but it's not a simple question of coming up with a few billion dollars to halt climate change. There are no simple solutions, unfortunately. Research should continue, but don't be misled into thinking that the only obstacle is coming up with an amount equivalent to a fraction of a percent of the US budget.

dr_dshiv 2y ago
There are lots of optimizations, I agree, but we know the mechanisms work because of all the natural experiments (volcanos). We definitely need the research—but no one thinks we don’t do this research because it is too expensive. It’s a third rail—and major litmus test. But it is a bit like the greens being antinuclear. If you really want to preserve biodiversity and prevent massive climate shifts, why make your mechanism of action human morality? “If we can merely engineer our way out of global warming, then humans won’t get what’s surely due.” Something like that, if you know what I mean.