These sorts of schemes always remind me of this part in the intro of localroger's "Passages in the Void" series hosted on his personal site [1]. The whole thing is some of the most amazing SF I've ever read!
"Then, about six thousand years after we were invented, it became clear that the Earth was entering one of its periodic Ice Ages. Left to its own devices this would not have been much of a problem, but it was a nuisance both we and the humans felt we could avoid. We built enormous sun-mirrors and seeded the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and easily reversed the temperature dip. In fact, we succeeded much too well. Within a hundred years it became obvious that we had overshot our goal. But our efforts to cool the planet were not as successful as our efforts to warm it. Both ice caps melted, the sea level rose sixty meters, and vast land areas became sea floor.
This was a different nuisance, but it was not the final catastrophe.
The Antarctic continent had been crushed for millions of years beneath its three kilometer thick shield of ice; like a ship relieved of a heavy cargo it now wanted to rise, its lighter rocks buoyed up by the denser material of the Earth's mantle. And that lifting did not occur evenly. Great fault lines opened up into ranges of volcanoes as long-trapped magma suddenly found paths to the surface. New mountain ranges added their weight to the strain on the ancient continental plate as Antarctica regained its equilibrium. All the while a dense soot cloud blanketed the Earth and the brief summer of warming darkened into a cruel permanent winter.
The ice caps returned, but the southern snow accumulation did not stop the volcanoes. Glaciers raced toward the Equator, and after they met the oceans began to freeze. Later the atmosphere's carbon dioxide began to collect as snow on the poles. We had long since given up on saving our creators and worked instead to record their accomplishments and understand their biology before they were gone."
It would have been a boring SF story if they had been successful with climate control, right? That’s the dystopian bias. It’s hard to make positive future visions emotionally interesting, so we revert to the more entertaining visions of catastrophe.
"Solarpunk is a literary genre and art movement that envisions how the future might look if humanity succeeded in solving major contemporary challenges with an emphasis on sustainability, human impact on the environment, climate change, and pollution."
So this idea is what makes you think of that story, and not the century we've spent actually seeding the atmosphere with greenhouse gases?
Maybe we should put some thought into reversing this massive artificial change we've made, before we suffer the sort of consequences described in the story.
Why sun mirrors? Mirrors facing the sun add to the earth’s albedo and thus contribute to a net heat energy loss in the atmosphere (which is why it’s being proposed to counteract warming impacts today). I must be misunderstanding sun-mirrors as referenced in this story.
Makes me think of the last time we shot metals through our exhausts. Do we really know all the consequences of algae growth and iron particle rain this time around? Or are we going to have a leaded gasoline, chapter 2?
I feel like this is a logical fallacy. Do we know all the consequences of trying to solve other problems? Of course not. Imagine if we stopped trying to solve any problem due to a “precautionary principle.”
Very valid point. I think for me an important distinction here is the problem size and complexity. The larger your problem, the more certainty you need that your solution works. This is also why we write thousands of tests for large software projects, while just a couple might suffice for a hobby project.
Does this mean that we should not explore new science and innovative solutions? Certainly not.
But before you start engaging in macro-ecological interventions, you better be damn sure that what you are doing is safe, now and tomorrow, both in first, second and nth order effects.
Agree! If the only way to test these technologies was at a massive scale, I’d be worried. But they can all be tested at a small scale. That’s the other logical fallacy: e.g., just because the intention is large scale deployment doesn’t mean the testing requires large scale deployment.
If only that sort of testing had been done before we added two and a half trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Sadly, now we don't have a choice between making a massive change or making no change. We just have a choice between leaving one change in place that we know is massively harmful, or using another method to reverse that change.
I think this is actually the fallacious statement. Failing to list any consequences doesn’t require listing all consequences to rectify. I agree with the statement that saying risks are “very low” is insufficient, especially when considering pumping a ton of stuff into the atmosphere. Rather one would expect a thoughtful analysis of what “very low” risks have been identified and why they’re low risk.
Yeah, I mean, honesty this sounds like it is an innovation coming from a some guy (or girl) in a garage. But I’m pretty ok with that. Let’s see if they can take it forward.
Am I wrong to think that it would be professionally toxic for a “real” climate scientist to work on a project like this?
I wouldn't worry about it getting too much traction. Even stratospheric injection of sulfiric acid (something that volcanoes do) is blackballed from even being researched, let alone considered.
Acid rain resulted from the 30+ million tons of sulfur dioxide released into the lower atmosphere. To cut global warming in half, 25,000 tons of sulfur dioxide would be needed in the upper atmosphere. So, 3 orders of magnitude less SO2. Meaning, mitigating global warming with SO2 would not meaningfully increase acid rain.
That 25,000 tons figure sounds really controversial. Even the article mentions
> David [Keith] thinks it is going to be easy and cheap, and I don’t agree,” says Robock. He estimates that several million tons of sulfur would have to be injected into the atmosphere annually to offset doubled levels of carbon dioxide, but if the particles clump together, “it could be many times that.”
I found a review of sulfate injection geoengineering studies[0] published in 2017 and with a quick read I can't find any mentions under millions of tons annually.
Fair enough. We really should be able to test this at some scale that we could know the order of magnitude required for efficacy. We are dangerously ignorant about the solution space.
Sulfuric acid is one of the most well understood stratospheric nanoparticles because we have millions of years of geological data to correlate with the climate history. If you're worried about unintended consequences and models being insufficient for prediction, you want to be as conservative as possible with your nanoparticle choices. Terraforming is not something to treat lightly.
> Current man-made and natural ISA emissions total over 100,000 tonnes and have many beneficial climate effects.
They're only talking about adding another 200,000. And...
> By directly copying the main planetary cooling mechanism from the ice ages, ISA has at least twelve identified cooling effects, presenting a balanced natural process.
So this also has geological history to draw on.
Despite this, they're currently only proposing a small trial, to make sure of safety for more trials. I don't think they're treating anything lightly.
They knew that leaded gas was a bad idea before it even hit the market. The inventor himself suffered from lead poisoning mere weeks before a major product announcement.
According to the source, "Current man-made and natural ISA emissions total over 100,000 tonnes and have many beneficial climate effects". They are not advocating for doing anything particularly new, just scaling up those (partially natural) emissions by a factor of 2. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. Forest fires are natural, but we would need to study very carefully before we attempted to double the amount of forest fires by artificial means.
In my opinion, though, it would take some pretty strong evidence that this would be actively harmful to dissuade me from wanting to run large scale experiments. Shoot, if leaded gasoline had the potential to slow down climate change it might even be worth bringing it back, considering the damage that climate change has already begun to cause and is projected to cause.
Solutions like these seem like they very well may do a good job in slowing global warming with relatively little effort/cost invested, but for political reasons won't see the light of day until they become a last resort, far too late in the game.
I can imagine humans a century from now wishing we had deployed them sooner and prevented so much unnecessary destruction.
Why anyone thinks that its ok to attempt to alter the climate, is beyond me. How can this be ok? How can someone else (a government) decide what weather I can have!??
What happens if oil companies lobby for extra coldness and cloud cover, as they know they will more than make up the expense in additional fuel costs? What if other vested interests get involved in what is bound to become a political scam? Is it possible that a slightly warmer climate will be of benefit to most people?
The chutzpah that the governance structure has in believing themselves righteous in determining not just the level of fines, or of the required licensing you need, or taxation, but now even the weather is unbelievable! Who gave them the right? Does say the US have the right to determine the weather for other countries? The whole concept would surely be illegal, if law was even based morality.. which its not.
We already alter the climate with every action we take, or every action we don't take.
It is less dangerous to take deliberate actions with intent than take actions without intent.
Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. Countries that burn large amounts of coal have an impact, as do countries that ban coal!
> Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have.
I agree that they are determining the weather already, and I don't like it. I don't want government to force cold weather on me. Do I get a choice on that? No. Neither do you.
All we get is the governance structure attempting to convince us of the validity and righteousness of their actions. If they do a good job, you will agree with what they say. That is propaganda.
I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). Greater gifts and power to those that already have power. Its a wheeze. The trick is to make you think you want it.
I wonder how libertarian philosophy handles a worldwide crisis such as climate change? Laissez faire capitalism? Or laissez faire catastrophe? I don't understand what'll it'll take to convince people that dire action is necessary? More wildfires? More crop failures from drought and invasive species? More tornadoes, flooding, and hurricanes? How much could you want?
There is no problem from the libertarian perspective. Preventing damage and paying restitution is entirely compatible with the philosophy. Same as if you were dumping toxic waste on someone's elses property.
What I don't understand is how someone so often identifies as libertarian in these climate change discussions and immediately dismisses the existence of climate change as a government conspiracy or denies any realistic solution that by necessity will involve governments. Of course, I agree capitalism is probably the least worst economic system and that companies will have a role to play in combating climate change, but I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes.
> I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes.
You might be conflating anarchists or anarcho-capitalists with Libertarians. Libertarians do believe in a government (with limited scope) that protects individual and property rights. If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. having to deal with the damage of someone else's pollution falls squarely within those property rights. It is no different then if someone dumps a pile of toxic waste on your land or upriver.
The libertarian solution would be more along the lines of cap and trade and civil damages opposed to sin taxes and a Green New Deal.
Specifically I'm referring to an earlier commenter that represents this view:
> I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits).
How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? I don't know if you've heard, but the SEC is planning on requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their risks to climate change and to report emissions. I see this sort of action as moving in a positive direction for once, but it feels too little too late.
>How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax?
Sin taxes dont necessarily solve any problems, but raise revenue that officials can spend on pet projects and caviar. They aren't morally or financially based in the damage done, and don't compensate those harmed.
Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not).
>It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it?
Take that up with people who don't believe in climate change. perhaps the "someone" upthread, not me.
I didn't mean you in particular, but I do think we'd agree that action is necessary; we might just disagree about the specifics and extent of implemented action.
> Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not).
I think I've heard this referred to as a carbon dividend, but it's not necessarily the same. Anyways, thanks for the replies, consideration, and chat. It was pleasant.
Let's say you have 2 bad neighbours. One keeps dumping toxic sludge in your garden (corporations). The other is forever telling you this is OK (government) and that you need to forget about it. Eventually they start to tell you that that your garden is a problem and that something needs to be done. At this point they come to you to ask for more money (a lot more) to clear it up, and ask that you can't go outside any more while they sort out the problem. And you think this is right and agree! I hope you can show you have become weaker at their expense, because you believed their nonsense!
The unfortunate reality is that the people that run government and corporations are the worst of us - parasites that are expert in extracting wealth from us, who then try to kid us that their abuse is in our best interests.
Those people who accept government are failing to recognise what poor psychology they have wrt government. They are the enablers of a narcissistic beast. You would NOT accept the behaviour that government does from a person, a person you would hold to account, but you justify and argue for government to be part of the solution! Amazing.
If you think those undertaking the abuse are going to resolve the issue they themselves present to you, you have it wrong. Until you recognise your frailties, and how you yourself are enabling their abuse, nothing will change. The promised land of a clean earth or whatever, will not be achieved while the worst of us are seeing opportunities to make more money and take greater control.
How can it be ok that people get to make massive changes to everybody's climate, as a side effect of making a personal profit? That's what's happening today.
Corporations, working with governments, have done whatever they like. So it's not 'we' it's those elites that own companies. Get it straight.
Now they want to change things, and they want to 'socialise' their tab. They think it would be great if you and I pay for their bad decisions. They just need to do really good public relations to make you want the bill.
If they do it right, they will make money off the environmental issues too.
The upshot will be that government and corporations will be stronger, while the citizen/consumer will be weaker.
You're mad at companies, yet I bet you're a consumer which makes you partially responsible. Humans and companies are synonymous and require one another. I'm willing to look at viable solutions regardless of cost. I don't care who pays it, a healthy planet benefits everyone.
When you're in a hole you want to get out of, it's usually a good idea to stop digging. The "spewing even more manufactured crap into the atmosphere" solution to climate change doesn't really pass the smell test.
Proposals like this seem promising but are hard to take seriously when they refuse to acknowledge potential risks. Merely stating the risk is “very low” does nothing to persuade people’s legitimate concerns about climate engineering.
That said I’m all for climate engineering. Being scared of it is like telling somebody obese that they should stick to sugary soda because nutrasweet could have unknown health side effects. Or teaching abstinence instead of safe sex education.
I know all sorts of buttons are being pushed with these analogies. But we obviously have a massive problem on our hands. There is a path out (reducing fossil everything) that we know is extremely difficult to implement, and by all current measures not going to work. So rationally we absolutely should try alternatives - at least TRY. And not assume they are bad while continuing to yell at the world that they need to be more virtuous.
It seems like a project like this would be able to manage potential risks pretty well, scale up over time, gather data as you go, be prepared to stop, things like that.
At least this would cost money, rather than making us money like the giant geoengineering project we're doing right now. That's making it really hard for people to admit they're wrong.
If it costs money, then somebody must be making money. Whoever was responsible for manufacturing and distributing these iron salts would have an economic interest in keeping the project running.
56 comments
[ 249 ms ] story [ 1546 ms ] thread"Then, about six thousand years after we were invented, it became clear that the Earth was entering one of its periodic Ice Ages. Left to its own devices this would not have been much of a problem, but it was a nuisance both we and the humans felt we could avoid. We built enormous sun-mirrors and seeded the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and easily reversed the temperature dip. In fact, we succeeded much too well. Within a hundred years it became obvious that we had overshot our goal. But our efforts to cool the planet were not as successful as our efforts to warm it. Both ice caps melted, the sea level rose sixty meters, and vast land areas became sea floor.
This was a different nuisance, but it was not the final catastrophe.
The Antarctic continent had been crushed for millions of years beneath its three kilometer thick shield of ice; like a ship relieved of a heavy cargo it now wanted to rise, its lighter rocks buoyed up by the denser material of the Earth's mantle. And that lifting did not occur evenly. Great fault lines opened up into ranges of volcanoes as long-trapped magma suddenly found paths to the surface. New mountain ranges added their weight to the strain on the ancient continental plate as Antarctica regained its equilibrium. All the while a dense soot cloud blanketed the Earth and the brief summer of warming darkened into a cruel permanent winter.
The ice caps returned, but the southern snow accumulation did not stop the volcanoes. Glaciers raced toward the Equator, and after they met the oceans began to freeze. Later the atmosphere's carbon dioxide began to collect as snow on the poles. We had long since given up on saving our creators and worked instead to record their accomplishments and understand their biology before they were gone."
[1] http://localroger.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk
Maybe we should put some thought into reversing this massive artificial change we've made, before we suffer the sort of consequences described in the story.
1. Rock dust carbon sequestration on farm land: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31199271
2. Algae tech to amplify photosynthetic carbon capture https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178435
3. “High Hopes”: using airships to capture carbon ice in the upper atmosphere (stoners!) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178667
And yes, let’s be curious! After all, many scientists are seeking to ban science in this area. Hard to believe. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientis...
Does this mean that we should not explore new science and innovative solutions? Certainly not.
But before you start engaging in macro-ecological interventions, you better be damn sure that what you are doing is safe, now and tomorrow, both in first, second and nth order effects.
So, to your point, we really need to be investing in testing these different possibilities. Meanwhile, many scientists are trying to ban research in the area. I don’t get it. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientis...
Sadly, now we don't have a choice between making a massive change or making no change. We just have a choice between leaving one change in place that we know is massively harmful, or using another method to reverse that change.
Am I wrong to think that it would be professionally toxic for a “real” climate scientist to work on a project like this?
And also methane. It's the first idea I've seen for doing that.
Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/02/08/84239/a-cheap-an...
> David [Keith] thinks it is going to be easy and cheap, and I don’t agree,” says Robock. He estimates that several million tons of sulfur would have to be injected into the atmosphere annually to offset doubled levels of carbon dioxide, but if the particles clump together, “it could be many times that.”
I found a review of sulfate injection geoengineering studies[0] published in 2017 and with a quick read I can't find any mentions under millions of tons annually.
[0] https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/3879/2017/acp-17-3879...
> Current man-made and natural ISA emissions total over 100,000 tonnes and have many beneficial climate effects.
They're only talking about adding another 200,000. And...
> By directly copying the main planetary cooling mechanism from the ice ages, ISA has at least twelve identified cooling effects, presenting a balanced natural process.
So this also has geological history to draw on.
Despite this, they're currently only proposing a small trial, to make sure of safety for more trials. I don't think they're treating anything lightly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.#Leaded_gaso...
In my opinion, though, it would take some pretty strong evidence that this would be actively harmful to dissuade me from wanting to run large scale experiments. Shoot, if leaded gasoline had the potential to slow down climate change it might even be worth bringing it back, considering the damage that climate change has already begun to cause and is projected to cause.
The chemistry sounds well understood, so probably not going to create exotic compounds that are bad for us.
I can imagine humans a century from now wishing we had deployed them sooner and prevented so much unnecessary destruction.
What happens if oil companies lobby for extra coldness and cloud cover, as they know they will more than make up the expense in additional fuel costs? What if other vested interests get involved in what is bound to become a political scam? Is it possible that a slightly warmer climate will be of benefit to most people?
The chutzpah that the governance structure has in believing themselves righteous in determining not just the level of fines, or of the required licensing you need, or taxation, but now even the weather is unbelievable! Who gave them the right? Does say the US have the right to determine the weather for other countries? The whole concept would surely be illegal, if law was even based morality.. which its not.
It is less dangerous to take deliberate actions with intent than take actions without intent.
Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. Countries that burn large amounts of coal have an impact, as do countries that ban coal!
I agree that they are determining the weather already, and I don't like it. I don't want government to force cold weather on me. Do I get a choice on that? No. Neither do you.
All we get is the governance structure attempting to convince us of the validity and righteousness of their actions. If they do a good job, you will agree with what they say. That is propaganda.
I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). Greater gifts and power to those that already have power. Its a wheeze. The trick is to make you think you want it.
> I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes.
You might be conflating anarchists or anarcho-capitalists with Libertarians. Libertarians do believe in a government (with limited scope) that protects individual and property rights. If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. having to deal with the damage of someone else's pollution falls squarely within those property rights. It is no different then if someone dumps a pile of toxic waste on your land or upriver.
The libertarian solution would be more along the lines of cap and trade and civil damages opposed to sin taxes and a Green New Deal.
> I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits).
How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? I don't know if you've heard, but the SEC is planning on requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their risks to climate change and to report emissions. I see this sort of action as moving in a positive direction for once, but it feels too little too late.
> If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change.
It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it?
Sin taxes dont necessarily solve any problems, but raise revenue that officials can spend on pet projects and caviar. They aren't morally or financially based in the damage done, and don't compensate those harmed.
Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not).
>It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it?
Take that up with people who don't believe in climate change. perhaps the "someone" upthread, not me.
> Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not).
I think I've heard this referred to as a carbon dividend, but it's not necessarily the same. Anyways, thanks for the replies, consideration, and chat. It was pleasant.
The unfortunate reality is that the people that run government and corporations are the worst of us - parasites that are expert in extracting wealth from us, who then try to kid us that their abuse is in our best interests.
Those people who accept government are failing to recognise what poor psychology they have wrt government. They are the enablers of a narcissistic beast. You would NOT accept the behaviour that government does from a person, a person you would hold to account, but you justify and argue for government to be part of the solution! Amazing.
If you think those undertaking the abuse are going to resolve the issue they themselves present to you, you have it wrong. Until you recognise your frailties, and how you yourself are enabling their abuse, nothing will change. The promised land of a clean earth or whatever, will not be achieved while the worst of us are seeing opportunities to make more money and take greater control.
Now they want to change things, and they want to 'socialise' their tab. They think it would be great if you and I pay for their bad decisions. They just need to do really good public relations to make you want the bill.
If they do it right, they will make money off the environmental issues too.
The upshot will be that government and corporations will be stronger, while the citizen/consumer will be weaker.
That said I’m all for climate engineering. Being scared of it is like telling somebody obese that they should stick to sugary soda because nutrasweet could have unknown health side effects. Or teaching abstinence instead of safe sex education.
I know all sorts of buttons are being pushed with these analogies. But we obviously have a massive problem on our hands. There is a path out (reducing fossil everything) that we know is extremely difficult to implement, and by all current measures not going to work. So rationally we absolutely should try alternatives - at least TRY. And not assume they are bad while continuing to yell at the world that they need to be more virtuous.
For very human reasons, this can be easier said than done. People often don't like to admit they were wrong.