5 ms·
Wait... We need to bring back pollution to cool down the earth?
by whatsupdog 1y ago
Wait... We need to bring back pollution to cool down the earth?
- pfdietz 1y agoPollution was masking some global warming, which is worse than had been thought. This pollution cannot mask it forever, since CO2 accumulates while it does not.
- ksynwa 1y agoThis study concerns a specific type of emission (sulfate emissions). Reducing other types of emissions should still reduce global warming.
- FranzFerdiNaN 1y agoNo, we need to stop using oil and gas and such.
- MangoToupe 1y agoShort of the wealthy paying the poor to not use oil and gas, that's obviously not gonna happen. What's plan b?
- nrjames 1y agoIndia seems to be converting to solar without external pressure. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/indias-solar-boom-keeps-coal-use-check-so-far-2025-maguire-2025-06-10/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/indias-solar-boo...
- dartharva 1y agoThat's because India has to. Domestic demands are huge and India's coal isn't very high in quality. Not to mention coal power is largely state-controlled and doesn't allow for much private frolicking. It's quite the opposite situation than the US, where coal is extremely high-quality and private player participation is unrestricted.
- matthewdgreen 1y agoAlmost all new energy construction is non-coal. Coal has collapsed even here in the US, and the current administration is unlikely to seriously change the trajectory. Gas is increasing, but mostly here in the US, but production is dropping again.
- MangoToupe 1y ago> is setting the stage for a potential drop in annual coal-fired power output I'm not holding my breath. I'm happy they saw a slight reduction in oil and gas use, though.
- justinrubek 1y agoYes, it can happen.
- Scarblac 1y agoAny alternatives are way further into fantasy land than plan A.
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoThat seems like a cynical though broadly accurate description of carbon pricing, which are in place around the world and shown to be one of the more effective interventions. They are technically also paying the rich (and crucially the companies that supply things for both the rich and poor) to not use oil and gas too.
- MangoToupe 1y agoI mean directly. I have little faith in carbon pricing as anything but a grift.
- drdrey 1y agoif you don't price carbon, then emitting carbon is free (you just priced it at $0)
- MangoToupe 1y agoWe simply don't have the market mechanisms to price carbon in any rational sense. Certainly not internationally.
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoIf you mean across borders, than the EU CBAM is already driving the installation of renewables in countries outside the EU in advance of being priced next year.
- adrianN 1y agoI suppose the alternative is making the alternatives cheaper. For example wind and solar for electricity are quite cheap.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y agoInvest in whole house oxygen generators.
- newsclues 1y agoWhat are the trade offs for that? The entire point is that the global climate is a complex system and changing things may have unintended consequences.
- noiv 1y ago> changing things may have unintended consequences. Proved by reality, that's why they propose to reduce or even undo human emissions.
- newsclues 1y agoIt's a transition, not a reduction. Human energy usage is going up. It's just shifting, what types and where, energy is generated. And those shifts, have tradeoffs. Want cleaner air in developed urban areas via EVs? ok cool, but the tradeoff is more mines elsewhere to supply those minerals, more batteries and metals for charging infrastructure. There is no free lunch in the energy world, solar and wind have tradeoffs.
- SlowTao 1y agoYep, currently attempting to move from a carbon economy to a metals based on.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- adornKey 1y agoOr we should start reading books about atmosphere physics. Taking a look at the infrared spectrum and checking out what's really going on there is worth it... https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VW-and-Happer-Picture1.png https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VW-and-H...
- mritterhoff 1y ago"In 2021 the CO2 Coalition submitted a public comment opposing climate change disclosure rules by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Coalition asserted "There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one," and further "Carbon dioxide, the gas purported to be the cause of catastrophic warming, is not toxic and does no harm." Both assertions are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition
- adornKey 1y agoThe spectrum still is like it is. Even Cancel culture won't change it. Please read some papers about the subject... I was pretty shocked to see what kind of quality you find there... (Nothing but a little bit of quibbling, and also a lot of name calling...). There is a reason why politics shuts down some institutions... Mainly those that have some kind of consensus, that doesn't have any foundation in physics. It's just a sect... Strong believes - and no science...
- defrost 1y agoLow PPM CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere affects IR in the atmosphere much as thin steel plate affects a bullet fired 5,000 yards through air .. it absorbs and scatters despite being a 'mere' PPM. ( Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation - https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/carbo... ) You want science, testable and repeatable science? Start with, say, Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity (1967) https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04... described as "the most influential studies of all time" ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-john-mitchell-how-a-1967-study-greatly-influenced-climate-change-science/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-john-mitchell-how-a-1967-st... ) There are others: https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-most-influential-climate-change-papers-of-all-time/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-most-influential-climate-cha... The real world physics of doubling a low CO2 concentration in representative air samples has been performed many a time .. it works as the cited paper says .. trapping more of heat energy radiated upwards by the land and sea that would otherwise diffuse outwards.
- newsclues 1y agoOr we need to reduce the number of living things that are polluting. For some that is less cows, for others, it seems like the desired solution is less humans.
- aeno 1y agoif you say "less humans", surely you mean "less ultra-rich humans", right? because poorer humans usually account for the minority of all the pollution.
- Scarblac 1y agoTrue, but only if you include middle class people in rich developed countries in the uktra rich.
- rowanG077 1y agoI mean if you include everyone in the first world as ultra-rich than yes.
- newsclues 1y agoThe ultra rich can afford EVs, and well insulated homes with solar panels. Dirt poor people heat and cook with coal or firewood. They burn down forests to plant food. They are sustained by long supply chains by well intentioned NGOs rather than local produce. It's not simple to say rich people are polluters, and poor people are living naturally. Although per capita, the middle class consumer may be the worst of them all.
- kelipso 1y agoEnvironmental impact of creating the EVs and giant homes with solar panels. Plus all that jet travel. You have to account for all of that, and then almost certainly they are polluting way more than middle class or poor person.
- aziaziazi 1y agoIf that isn’t cynicism, here’s some optimisation thoughts: - start with the humans that pollute more - which is way more correlated to their consumption that their solar roof surface. Sorry USA, you go first. Others high standard living countries follows. - Regarding the cows, they have a shorter lifespan and don’t shop much neither do they heat their house or shower water. We could just stop breeding new ones and keep the existant till their death.
- scotty79 1y agoYeah, if you spread a bunch of sulfates in the air it gets cooler. But oceans don't get less acidic and the air doesn't get more breathable.
- csomar 1y agoI mean if you explode all of our nuclear bombs, we’ll probably take the earth to a winter. And it’ll still be livable, just a bit more cancer all around.
- mritterhoff 1y agoNuclear winter is extremely unlikely to be survivable for most humans. With enough sediment in the atmosphere the earth will cool AND most crops will fail, causing world-wide famines.
- MSFT_Edging 1y agoThere was a period during covid where cross atlantic shipping slowed, and the reduced sulfur in the air caused some increased warming. Basically things are a lot worse than we assume but there's certain accidental keystones holding things back, like pollution combating the global warming by blocking the sun.
- tzs 1y agoSome pollutants do have a cooling effect and there are circumstances where purposefully increasing those pollutants could be worth it, but only if we can be sure it is temporary. The nightmare scenario would be something like we start releasing sulfates into the upper atmosphere to induce cooling to counter the warming from greenhouse gases but do not reduce the growth in greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases would continue growing and so the amount of sulfates we have to release to counter that also would keep growing. There are two big problems with that. #1. The greenhouse gas emissions are a side effect of numerous useful and important activities. People make a lot of money from those activities. They happen unless we make a concerted effort to reduce them. The sulfite emissions on the other hand would be specifically to counter the effects of greenhouse gases. Whoever is paying for them would be losing money doing this. All it takes is an economic downturn to make budgets tight and funding might go away. #2. Greenhouse gases can affect climate for a long time. It takes hundreds to thousands of years in the case of CO2 for today's emissions to be no longer affecting the climate. Sulfates in the upper atmosphere clear out in months to maybe a couple years. Let's say then we go down the sulfates path, don't reduce greenhouse gas growth and this goes on for decades. Then something stops or disrupts the sulfate releases for a couple years and the sulfites leave the upper atmosphere. The greenhouse gases are there still there and we rapidly get most of the warming that had been held off for decades by the sulfates. This would likely be disastrous. Getting all that warming spread over several decades at least gives people time to adapt. Getting it all over a few years would be way to fast for people to deal with. I think probably the only way purposefully emitting pollutants like this might be acceptable would be after we've got greenhouse gas emissions under control and are on a path we are sure is going to get is to net zero in some specific timeframe, but it will still take a few years to reach peak greenhouse emissions and we've identified a tipping point that we will hit before that. Then maybe countering that with emitting pollutants just until greenhouse gases peak and then come down to where we are below that tipping point might be reasonable.
- userbinator 1y agoDepends what you define as "pollution". Everything seems to have its place...
- mritterhoff 1y agoLead certainly doesn't. Which is why we (mostly) stopped putting it in gasoline.
- drdrey 1y agorelated, less ship activity during COVID meant fewer pollutants and so more warming: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/30/termination-shock-cut-in-ship-pollution-sparked-global-heating-spurt https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/30/...