'The Strange and Totally Real Plan to Blot Out the Sun and Reverse Global Warming' (politico.com) 117
In a 2023 pitch to investors, a "well-financed, highly credentialed" startup named Stardust aimed for a "gradual temperature reduction demonstration" in 2027, according to a massive new 9,600-word article from Politico. ("Annually dispersing ~1 million tons of sun-reflecting particles," says one slide. "Equivalent to ~1% extra cloud coverage.")
"Another page told potential investors Stardust had already run low-altitude experiments using 'test particles'," the article notes: [P]ublic records and interviews with more than three dozen scientists, investors, legal experts and others familiar with the company reveal an organization advancing rapidly to the brink of being able to press "go" on its planet-cooling plans. Meanwhile, Stardust is seeking U.S. government contracts and quietly building an influence machine in Washington to lobby lawmakers and officials in the Trump administration on the need for a regulatory framework that it says is necessary to gain public approval for full-scale deployment....
The presentation also included revenue projections and a series of opportunities for venture capitalists to recoup their investments. Stardust planned to sign "government contracts," said a slide with the company's logo next to an American flag, and consider a "potential acquisition" by 2028. By 2030, the deck foresaw a "large-scale demonstration" of Stardust's system. At that point, the company claimed it would already be bringing in $200 million per year from its government contracts and eyeing an initial public offering, if it hadn't been sold already.
The article notes that for "a widening circle of researchers and government officials, Stardust's perceived failures to be transparent about its work and technology have triggered a larger conversation about what kind of international governance framework will be needed to regulate a new generation of climate technologies." (Since currently Stardust and its backers "have no legal obligations to adhere to strenuous safety principles or to submit themselves to the public view.")
In October Politico spoke to Stardust CEO, Yanai Yedvab, a former nuclear physicist who was once deputy chief scientist at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. Stardust "was ready to announce the $60 million it had raised from 13 new investors," the article points out, "far larger than any previous investment in solar geoengineering." [Yedvab] was delighted, he said, not by the money, but what it meant for the project. "We are, like, few years away from having the technology ready to a level that decisions can be taken" — meaning that deployment was still on track to potentially begin on the timeline laid out in the 2023 pitch deck. The money raised was enough to start "outdoor contained experiments" as soon as April, Yedvab said. These would test how their particles performed inside a plane flying at stratospheric heights, some 11 miles above the Earth's surface... The key thing, he insisted, was the particle was "safe." It would not damage the ozone layer and, when the particles fall back to Earth, they could be absorbed back into the biosphere, he said. Though it's impossible to know this is true until the company releases its formula. Yedvab said this round of testing would make Stardust's technology ready to begin a staged process of full-scale, global deployment before the decade is over — as long as the company can secure a government client. To start, they would only try to stabilize global temperatures — in other words fly enough particles into the sky to counteract the steady rise in greenhouse gas levels — which would initially take a fleet of 100 planes.
This begs the question: should the world attempt solar geoengineering? That the global temperature would drop is not in question. Britain's Royal Society... said in a report issued in early November that there was little doubt it would be effective. They did not endorse its use, but said that, given the growing interest in this field, there was good reason to be better informed about the side effects... [T]hat doesn't mean it can't have broad benefits when weighed against deleterious climate change, according to Ben Kravitz, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Indiana University who has closely studied the potential effects of solar geoengineering. "There would be some winners and some losers. But in general, some amount of ... stratospheric aerosol injection would likely benefit a whole lot of people, probably most people," he said. Other scientists are far more cautious. The Royal Society report listed a range of potential negative side effects that climate models had displayed, including drought in sub-Saharan Africa. In accompanying documents, it also warned of more intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic and winter droughts in the Mediterranean. But the picture remains partial, meaning there is no way yet to have an informed debate over how useful or not solar geoengineering could be...
And then there's the problem of trying to stop. Because an abrupt end to geoengineering, with all the carbon still in the atmosphere, would cause the temperature to soar suddenly upward with unknown, but likely disastrous, effects... Once the technology is deployed, the entire world would be dependent on it for however long it takes to reduce the trillion or more tons of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to a safe level...
Stardust claims to have solved many technical and safety challenges, especially related to the environmental impacts of the particle, which they say would not harm nature or people. But researchers say the company's current lack of transparency makes it impossible to trust.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the article.
"Another page told potential investors Stardust had already run low-altitude experiments using 'test particles'," the article notes: [P]ublic records and interviews with more than three dozen scientists, investors, legal experts and others familiar with the company reveal an organization advancing rapidly to the brink of being able to press "go" on its planet-cooling plans. Meanwhile, Stardust is seeking U.S. government contracts and quietly building an influence machine in Washington to lobby lawmakers and officials in the Trump administration on the need for a regulatory framework that it says is necessary to gain public approval for full-scale deployment....
The presentation also included revenue projections and a series of opportunities for venture capitalists to recoup their investments. Stardust planned to sign "government contracts," said a slide with the company's logo next to an American flag, and consider a "potential acquisition" by 2028. By 2030, the deck foresaw a "large-scale demonstration" of Stardust's system. At that point, the company claimed it would already be bringing in $200 million per year from its government contracts and eyeing an initial public offering, if it hadn't been sold already.
The article notes that for "a widening circle of researchers and government officials, Stardust's perceived failures to be transparent about its work and technology have triggered a larger conversation about what kind of international governance framework will be needed to regulate a new generation of climate technologies." (Since currently Stardust and its backers "have no legal obligations to adhere to strenuous safety principles or to submit themselves to the public view.")
In October Politico spoke to Stardust CEO, Yanai Yedvab, a former nuclear physicist who was once deputy chief scientist at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. Stardust "was ready to announce the $60 million it had raised from 13 new investors," the article points out, "far larger than any previous investment in solar geoengineering." [Yedvab] was delighted, he said, not by the money, but what it meant for the project. "We are, like, few years away from having the technology ready to a level that decisions can be taken" — meaning that deployment was still on track to potentially begin on the timeline laid out in the 2023 pitch deck. The money raised was enough to start "outdoor contained experiments" as soon as April, Yedvab said. These would test how their particles performed inside a plane flying at stratospheric heights, some 11 miles above the Earth's surface... The key thing, he insisted, was the particle was "safe." It would not damage the ozone layer and, when the particles fall back to Earth, they could be absorbed back into the biosphere, he said. Though it's impossible to know this is true until the company releases its formula. Yedvab said this round of testing would make Stardust's technology ready to begin a staged process of full-scale, global deployment before the decade is over — as long as the company can secure a government client. To start, they would only try to stabilize global temperatures — in other words fly enough particles into the sky to counteract the steady rise in greenhouse gas levels — which would initially take a fleet of 100 planes.
This begs the question: should the world attempt solar geoengineering? That the global temperature would drop is not in question. Britain's Royal Society... said in a report issued in early November that there was little doubt it would be effective. They did not endorse its use, but said that, given the growing interest in this field, there was good reason to be better informed about the side effects... [T]hat doesn't mean it can't have broad benefits when weighed against deleterious climate change, according to Ben Kravitz, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Indiana University who has closely studied the potential effects of solar geoengineering. "There would be some winners and some losers. But in general, some amount of ... stratospheric aerosol injection would likely benefit a whole lot of people, probably most people," he said. Other scientists are far more cautious. The Royal Society report listed a range of potential negative side effects that climate models had displayed, including drought in sub-Saharan Africa. In accompanying documents, it also warned of more intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic and winter droughts in the Mediterranean. But the picture remains partial, meaning there is no way yet to have an informed debate over how useful or not solar geoengineering could be...
And then there's the problem of trying to stop. Because an abrupt end to geoengineering, with all the carbon still in the atmosphere, would cause the temperature to soar suddenly upward with unknown, but likely disastrous, effects... Once the technology is deployed, the entire world would be dependent on it for however long it takes to reduce the trillion or more tons of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to a safe level...
Stardust claims to have solved many technical and safety challenges, especially related to the environmental impacts of the particle, which they say would not harm nature or people. But researchers say the company's current lack of transparency makes it impossible to trust.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the article.
Stop now (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Just no.
Re:Stop now [and just give up] (Score:2)
Actually that's my initial reaction, too, but I do think there might be some kind of solution. On third thought I'm sure this is not it, but...
If (and that's actually a huge IF) we were able to model the atmosphere well enough, then I think we might be able to intervene in a sane way. My own favorite fantasy solution would be large arrays of orbital mirrors rotated as needed to control the solar energy reaching the earth. Take a bit off the sides here, add some extra crops there...
Time for a joke? We could
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stop now [and just give up] (Score:4, Insightful)
At least you can get rid of the solar sails once you don't need them anymore . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I said it was such a big IF. It is pretty clear that long-range forecasts are not possible, so the solution approach along these lines would involve continuous interventions based on short-range forecasts--and the main threat would be that you might push the system into a non-recoverable state. Perhaps helpful to compare it to fly-by-wire fighter planes with negative dynamic stability? Yes, you can keep such a plane under control, but the corrections and adjustments have to happen quickly, someti
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming we don't kill one another in a massive war, odds are looking good for nuclear fusion to take over, destroying most of the existing energy market (including fossil fuel providers). That much cheap power would give us better ways of handling atmospheric CO2 levels.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's really brought a radically more cost-effective energy source to challenge fossil fuels. Nuclear and renewables have their advantages, but cost isn't yet one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with fusion is that until someone demonstrates a practical way to sustain it and produce energy, it's probably not going to get the kind of funding needed to demonstrate a practical way to sustain it and produce energy. At least not in less than several decades, and we don't have that long.
Like fossil fuels and nuclear, it is competing for funding with renewables. Renewables are mature, are cheap, and the market is growing. Because we are all capitalist societies, that's the only way we can addr
Re: (Score:2)
Basically concurrence except with your time limit (unless we unleash a fresh catastrophe). I currently don't see "global warming" as an existential threat by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep your eye on Commonwealth and Helion. Things are changing.
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish them luck, but there have been so many false dawn's on fusion...
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but it's not looking like practical fusion power generation is remotely on the horizon. Even if it really is just thirty years away until we get fusion that outputs more power than the input power required to generate it (we have reached various "breakeven" points, but not actually that one), that does not solve any real problems. As it stands, a true breakeven fusion reactor would, at best, be a drop in replacement for a fission reactor in a power plant. In other words, just a big heat supply to dri
Re: (Score:2)
Investor momentum is shifting, and smart money is chasing startups like Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion (among others; however, they seem to be the front runners).
Renewables are and continue to be one of the most expensive power generation options on the market (I keep looking for signs that that has changed, and I see nothing on the market today that tells me otherwise). Even novel fission technologies such as SMRs MSRs threaten it from a cost angle (ignoring regulatory costs, which is why MSRs in
Re: (Score:2)
Even novel fission technologies such as SMRs MSRs threaten it from a cost angle
Sure. So do fairy dust and unicorn farts. Just as soon as we have the fairy dust harvesting operations and unicorn fart extractors up and running - oh, and solve the pesky problem of capturing magical creatures - and actually establish even a basic baseline of the real cost, they will clearly outcompete renewables. That seems to be your argument in a nutshell.
Working fusion reactors would beat everything else on the market on a cost basis and could plug right into the grid, no problem.
So, you're not even hand waving away all the technical problems with fusion reactors (beyond the ones I myself ignored such as actually getting a stab
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's my initial reaction, too, but I do think there might be some kind of solution. On third thought I'm sure this is not it, but...
If (and that's actually a huge IF) we were able to model the atmosphere well enough, then I think we might be able to intervene in a sane way. My own favorite fantasy solution would be large arrays of orbital mirrors rotated as needed to control the solar energy reaching the earth. Take a bit off the sides here, add some extra crops there...
Time for a joke? We could use the mirrors to FINALLY get rid of DST. And if we had that atmospheric model we could do it without the adverse side effects...
It'll end up as a forever pay service just like everything else. "Pay us, or we block your sunlight and redirect it to space." That seems to be the way everything we do goes these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly the ACK, but I largely see it as a motivational problem. The people who want money are strongly motivated and the people who just want to get along or even just want to help other people are relatively weakly motivated. It sort of worked when their ambitions for more money were sane, but at this point they have fallen off the edge of insanity.
Leading to my (crazy) conclusion of the incommensurables:
infinity << money << time << infinity
Re: Stop now [and just give up] (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And get kids outside. "Freedom" as a kid was on a bike, and a pre-teen on a bike can easily cover several miles in a reasonable amount of time. Which in most places should be able to get you to a store and back.
The problem is generally infrastructure and poorly designed neighborhoods - ones where you can be 500 feet away as the crow flies, but take
Re: (Score:2)
My point seems to have been missed on this branch. However doesn't seem worth pursuing the diversion, though I will note that The Anxious Generation by Haidt is informative on the topic of raising children.
Re: (Score:2)
Then schools must change their working hours, not time itself. Fuckin duh!
Re: (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much everything....
Re: Stop now (Score:5, Funny)
If we do this we can get ahead of the Machines before they develop enough smarts to realize humans can be used as biological batteries to power their AI collective.
Highlander 2 (Score:2)
Blocking the sun to counter environmental damage is the plot of Highlander 2, not the Matrix.
Re: (Score:2)
Those Whack-ow/i-ski Brothers, violating the Second Law like that...
No, no! Don't forget, they hand waved in "... combined with a type of fusion..." to the process, explaining where the extra energy comes from. I mean, it is complete and utter nonsense since there seems to be no conceivable way that human beings would ever need to be a mediator for the energy in that case. For me, I simply head canon that into the notion that nearly everyone, humans and machines alike simply believes a bunch of lies about what is really going on. I mean, it fits the general theme of realit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stop now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessarily dangerous. We can start small, and anything you put up to block the sun is going to be pushed away from it by the pressure of the photons, or you can stick it in a decaying orbit so it has a limited lifespan.
As long as it is designed to have a limited lifespan and clear itself out naturally, like the tens of thousands of LEO satellites we are throwing up now without much care, the damage that can be done is negligible. Once proven safe we can look at scaling it up, in a way that means i
Re: (Score:2)
Dinosaurs (Score:5, Informative)
The final episode of Dinosaurs was so darned depressing ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This is not a job for a corporation to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, even if we wanted to do this why would we contract some random company to do it?
Companies fail, they don't have to be transparent, their leaders are rarely, if ever, responsible for any damage their companies do to people's lives, their primary responsibility is to give value to their shareholders, not do anything good or useful.
They are often led by low-intellegence, money-obsessed sociopaths who aren't actually interested in whatever their company actually does, but rather are entirely interested in becoming as rich as possible.
And talk about too big to fail.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:This is not a job for a corporation to do (Score:5, Informative)
"They usually hire private corporations" - they've only been doing that in modern times. Its a bit of a feedback cycle - people who worship the libertarian version of captialism get voted in, cripple the goverment and farm out its work to incompetant companies - then when the shitty companies fail to do good work they blame it on the goverment. These morons are the same people who get mad about how expensive the stuff the military buys is, but also are perfectly happy that we make the military get all its stuff from parasitical corporations that charge it absurd amounts of money for basic things, because they can't bring themselves to think that maybe their simple ideology is flawed.
Re:This is not a job for a corporation to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, even if we wanted to do this why would we contract some random company to do it?
Companies fail, they don't have to be transparent, their leaders are rarely, if ever, responsible for any damage their companies do to people's lives, their primary responsibility is to give value to their shareholders, not do anything good or useful.
Why have we continued to feed all the "random companies" that got us into this mess in the first place? For example, the oil companies knew in the 50's that we would end up where we are now, and created models in the 60's that were still usably accurate into the twenty-teens. They gaslit the world - appropriate pun intended - and they continue to do so. But we still keep buying from them and they are still incredibly rich.
The weaknesses of corporatism are never examined too seriously by the people whose beyond-comfortable lifestyles that corporatism enables.
Re: (Score:2)
"why did we continue to feed them?"
Did you forget about how the whole industrial Western world runs on oil and that alternatives didn't meaningfully exist until the last decade (and even now they're basically edge cases)?
It would that spoil your little "durr it's all them corporations fault!" oversimplification?
Re: (Score:2)
"why did we continue to feed them?" Did you forget about how the whole industrial Western world runs on oil and that alternatives didn't meaningfully exist until the last decade (and even now they're basically edge cases)?
It would that spoil your little "durr it's all them corporations fault!" oversimplification?
Fair point, so I'll re-phrase my question: "why did we bury our heads in the sand and refuse to hold both corporations and ourselves accountable".
We were still always going to end up with AGW - but we could have been working on mitigation and reduction strategies for at least five decades which we mostly lost, partly to our own heads-in-the-sand behaviour and largely to corporate sand-bagging.
BTW, I still think "durr it's mostly them corporations fault!" We could have had comfortable, happy, modern existenc
Re: (Score:2)
Which draws the AC's like flies. Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree that there's less altruism and more greed in this initiative. But I think they have an uphill battle there.
The plan only works if you think that global warming is a problem. And Dear Leader believes that it's a hoax...
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, and forgot to add that Dear Leader also doesn't believe that the US (taxpayer) should do the heavy lifting on world affairs. When he's cut funding for WHO, USAID, Paris agreement, etc, it it would be extraordinary if he committed taxpayer funding for this initiative to the world's benefit (even if it actually worked).
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, even if we wanted to do this why would we contract some random company to do it?
Companies fail, they don't have to be transparent, their leaders are rarely, if ever, responsible for any damage their companies do to people's lives, their primary responsibility is to give value to their shareholders, not do anything good or useful.
They are often led by low-intellegence, money-obsessed sociopaths who aren't actually interested in whatever their company actually does, but rather are entirely interested in becoming as rich as possible.
And talk about too big to fail.
And our government officials insist that private industry is "better" than government at getting things done. Your center paragraph there pretty much defines modern government as well.
"Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?" --Queensryche., Revolution Calling
Its going to happen whether we want it to or not (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody will benefit from a half-baked fantasy sponsored by a few lucky imbeciles, who got rich because they successfully lobbied for tax cuts and subsidies from the rest of us and blocked the COP process in the first place.
And the rest of the world may very well respond directly to the ecological threats of trumpism, if its unabashed cretinism continues for too long.
Re: (Score:1)
Same old song and dance: get rid of fossil fuels and vehicles that need them, switch everyone to an EV, whine because there isn't enough power being produced to charge your Tesla, realize that the natural gas that heats your home and cooks your food and generates power is a fossil fuel and outputs CO2, get rid of natural gas, realize we now need tons more power got all the electric heaters and stoves (on top of more and more datacenters), realize that it'll take hundreds of years for the 'greenhouse' effec
Re: Its going to happen whether we want it to or n (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, how is any of that the "same old song and dance"? When has this played out before in history?
As far as EV's go, there is no real issue with producing enough power to operate an EV. If there were, then there would be an equally as large or larger problem with fueling up an equivalent ICEV. There's no whining involved, it's just basic supply and demand economics.
As for natural gas, most people are not dumb enough to not realize it is a fossil fuel. Electric heating for homes using heat pumps is vastly
Re: (Score:2)
Same old song and dance refers to "It can also refer to broader contexts, such as societal patterns or political issues that keep resurfacing without any real change. For instance, one might comment on a politician's repetitive promises as "the same old song and dance".
So, switch everything to electric without having enough electricity to power everything we switched... wonderful! Fueling up an ICEV uses gas (fossil fuel)... where does the 500kwH or whatever that your Tesla needs come from? Being that the
Re: (Score:2)
Same old song and dance refers to "It can also refer to broader contexts, such as societal patterns or political issues that keep resurfacing without any real change. For instance, one might comment on a politician's repetitive promises as "the same old song and dance".
You were implying a repeating pattern, but not actually identifying any repeating pattern.
So, switch everything to electric without having enough electricity to power everything we switched... wonderful! Fueling up an ICEV uses gas (fossil fuel)... where does the 500kwH or whatever that your Tesla needs come from? Being that they aren't exactly rushing to build tons more nuclear plants, it's gotta come from somewhere.
Average US household drives 14,200 miles per year. That's 37.88 miles per day. The average EV gets around 3.5 miles to the kWh. That's about 11 kWh per day (ugh, technically three time units that should be cancelling each other there, that's why I hate kWh as a measure). The average us household uses 30 kWh of electricity per day. So, the increase to power EVs would be about 36.7%. Sure, it's an increase, but it's not
Re: (Score:2)
You're right... we've never had any kind of energy crisis before (like the oil crisis), or a shortage of metals (like during WW2).
About 40% of US corn is used for making ethanol (for E-85), which is added to fossil fuel :-) (maybe they could come up with a power plant that burns straight ethanol).
You do realize that the idiots in charge of finding places to put the datacenters to run the idiotic LLM-AIs are going to cram the buildings anyplace they can, regardless of what they bulldoze or clearcut... and,
Re: (Score:2)
You're right... we've never had any kind of energy crisis before (like the oil crisis), or a shortage of metals (like during WW2).
What kind of strawman is that? I never said anything about never having had an energy crisis or shortage of metals before. I said that we had never replaced ICE vehicles with EVs and had problems finding enough electricity to charge them either previously or now.
About 40% of US corn is used for making ethanol (for E-85), which is added to fossil fuel :-) (maybe they could come up with a power plant that burns straight ethanol).
I am not sure what your point is here. As it is, plants are not as efficient at producing energy from sunlight as solar panels are, also corn is not the best energy crop anyway, and additionally making ethanol from an energy crop involves multiple s
Re:Its going to happen whether we want it to or no (Score:4, Informative)
>> he current trend is very close to the normal periodic cycle
Utter bullshit.
Re: Its going to happen whether we want it to or n (Score:2)
What could go wrong? (Score:2)
Ummmm.... No? (Score:1)
Does this plan even sound right? (Score:2)
So we are going to solve pollution's effects by releasing more pollution?
Re: (Score:2)
Well ... (Score:2, Troll)
... it would certainly put the hyperventilation industry out of business, to just ... you know ... cool things off a bit.
We can't have that!!
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit; it's a fun thought experiment.
We don't know we will find such a method. But let's say we do. Just for the sake of the thought experiment. Imagine how different people will react. Some will have their favorite cause just plain ... taken away.
The Simpsons did it again! (Score:3)
Band-aids for burn victims. (Score:2)
So, we could use the renewable/carbon neutral (or negative) path .... OR .... not, but with lots of extra steps and no guarantee of success?
"And then there's the problem of trying to stop. Because an abrupt end to geoengineering, with all the carbon still in the atmosphere, would cause the temperature to soar suddenly upward with unknown, but likely disastrous, effects... "
Just have an end to fossil-fuel use, you fucking idiots! That's a tractable challenge. That's something we have decades of ex
What could possibly go wrong (Score:2)
Let's just distribute 1 million tons of microplastics into the atmosphere.
Great name (Score:2)
This is going to be in rain, air, eventually earth (Score:3)
So they're spreading this shit and it's going to end up in our lungs, in our water, in our earth, in animals, everywhere? And they're not releasing their formula? What the fuck?
Oops! wow this didn't go as planned! (Score:2)
You only get one vote out of 9 billion (Score:3)
This has already been tried (Score:2)
Accidentally, it happened post-WW2 due to smog cover over lots of the northern hemisphere creating a mini-cold period in the 1950s/60s. It was a disaster for Africa.
AD 536 (Score:3)
Bad idea. We're just a few volcanic eruptions away [wikipedia.org] from wanting all the sunshine we can get.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
So we just need a properly measured amount of nuclear winter; nuclear winter lite (TM), got it.
Good news, we have centuries of supply for such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is why techniques with an UNDO button are preferred. Adding mist-generators to cargo ships thus may be a preferred way to add shade (via clouds).
Anyone know how long the dust in TFA lingers?
These plans aren't really meant to go anywhere (Score:3)
It lets you tell the public that the scientists will figure it all out so they don't need to make any changes to the way we do things today.
It's the exact same scam plastic recycling turned out to be and for the exact same reason.
The Matrix (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
\o/ (Score:1)
This is taking painkillers after you've stabbed yourself in the face for no reason.
Re: (Score:1)
I can confirm over longer time periods it feels so good when I stop.
And the CO2 acidifying the ocean (Score:2)
Is not addressed at all by this. That is a major problem caused by climate change.
Re: (Score:1)
This should be upvoted. It's a real thing. Excess CO2 is not just a heat issue. I'm not saying things won't be sufficiently desperate for this to become a good idea, but a concern with these schemes is that we (as a species) then go 'oh great, problem solved' and continue with damaging behaviours.
dumb (Score:1)
set the controls to the heart of the sun (Score:1)
Ask Perplexity (Score:1)
I asked Perplexity what this mysterious particle is that they would release.
"the company indicates that it is made from naturally occurring ingredients and claims it to be environmentally safe, not damaging the ozone layer, and absorbable back into the biosphere after falling to Earth."
And then how the particles would be put in place;
"uses high-altitude balloon payloads as its primary release technology, deploying specialized containers that disperse the reflective particles into the stratosphere. These con
All board SnowPiercer while you can! (Score:3)
We'll be riding around the planet for the next 4 decades!
There's only one solution (Score:3)
1) Produce an excess of energy using methods that do not release CO2
2) Use the excess energy to sequester atmospheric CO2
3) Repeat until atmospheric CO2 levels are at pre-industrial levels
There are no shortcuts. If you skip step one and attempt step two, you have a net increase in CO2 release. If you avoid this whole plan by adjusting insolation, you get a break on the temperature while we inevitably ignore the continually increasing CO2 and all the other issues it brings, and you make us dependent on maintaining the new artificial insolation management system - and when it one day fails, there will be that much more CO2 to deal with.
You may also want to consider that with rising CO2 levels comes cognitive impairment. It won't be much of an issue outside with the numbers we're talking about, but indoor air (which we spend an awful lot of time breathing) only reduces CO2 levels by mixing with outdoor air. The indoor CO2 levels are always higher, and that will get worse as outdoor levels rise.
Re: There's only one solution (Score:2)
1. Reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses going into the evironment today.
2. Encourage reductions in birthrates. aka globably free Nexalplon and financial incentives to have fewer children
âoe1980â(TM)s population with 21st century technologyâ
That would be a very pleasant world to inhabit.
3. As described above, implement schemes using cleaner energy aka solar, wind, geo, nuclear if they can make it happen. The environmentalists need to get on board as there are tradeoffs â¦cover
Re: (Score:2)
2. Encourage reductions in birthrates. aka globably free Nexalplon and financial incentives to have fewer children
Global birth rates are already crashing. Most of the developed world is already well below replacement and is increasingly dependent on immigration. On current trends the global population is already slated to start declining within 15-20 years. The decline is likely to cause serious problems within 50 years, and if at some point we don't reverse or slow the decline, within 100 years we may struggle to maintain our knowledge base (ignoring AI, which probably shouldn't be ignored).
Re: (Score:2)
1) Produce an excess of energy using methods that do not release CO2
What you describe is the only solution, but it almost certainly can't happen fast enough to prevent massive climate-caused death tolls, including lots of wars produced by the need to relocate billions of people and restructure global agriculture. The enormous refugee crises and wars are, of course, going to disrupt the technology transition that your solution necessarily and correctly relies on, which will slow it down, resulting in even more emissions and more warming.
I think we very well might have to
Nuclear industry bullshit (Score:3)
Reduce the effectiveness of solar panels by reducing global insolation. All you have to do is fuck up the planet just enough to close the gap making the perceived costs of going nuclear unpopular.
This will work (Score:1)
Blot out the top 1% (Score:3)
The richest 1% burn through their entire annual carbon share in just 10 days.
C. Montgomery Burns... (Score:2)
C. Montgomery Burns tried this idea...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And I agree with Waylon Smithers, "Owls will deafen us with incessant hooting..." Woodsy the Owl will become our greatest nemesis...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] the new "dirty bird" without the sun. The new golden age, of darkness looms overhead...
JoshK.
They want to kill us all. (Score:2)
I always thought dumping crap into the atmosphere was called pollution. Not only frowned upon but illegal in many palaces. Heck here in Finland they want to stop us burning wood in the stoves of our homes because of it.
So they basically want to cause the equivalent of a Krakatoa eruption every year. What could possibly go wrong?
Madness.
Instead of blotting out the sun (Score:2)
Instead of blotting out the sun, ask for a black hole sun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
What could go wrong with sun-reflecting particles (Score:2)
This begs the question: should the world attempt s (Score:2)
Raises the question.
https://www.masterclass.com/ar... [masterclass.com]
Kind of Getting "Highlander 2" Vibes (Score:2)
Cheaper approach - gang up on biggest emitters... (Score:2)
It will be much cheaper and more effective:
Just dismantling russia would reduce CO2 emission a lot...
Re:Blame it on Climate Alarmists' lies (Score:5, Informative)
The website you've linked to was created by the Heartland Institute. It's a very upstanding conservative think tank that, in the 1990s, attempted to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobbied against smoking bans. In the 2000s they refocused on denying climate change.
The funny thing is that if you google for climateataglance, your fun website comes up as the first hit. The second hit is the page "Climate at a Glance" from the NOAA. I'm sure the similar names are a pure coincidence.
Sounds like you've provided an incredibly reliable source.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, one of the reasons they maybe don't explain things so well is that their plan is basically to "blot out the sun". Basically, they plain to stain the sky so that less sun will get through. While, yes, this would reduce temperatures on Earth, it would also dim the sun, which means that, among other issues, agricultural land will become less productive. They obviously don't want to go into the consequences of that or who will pay for the damages to every farmer on Earth.