
A Fast, Cheap and Scary Way to Cool the Planet - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/solar-geoengineering-cooling-the-planet-can-be-fast-and-cheap
======
makerofspoons
This article doesn't address what impact this would have on crop yields if
less light is reaching the surface. It also does nothing to address ocean
acidification, which is realy the unaddressed elephant in the room in many
climate discussions.

Olivine weathering addresses both:
[https://projectvesta.org/](https://projectvesta.org/)

~~~
nbardy
Or the clear of forests, the rapidly decreasing biodiversity, diseases that
are spreading to kill bats, trees, and bees. The rapidly increasing
contamination of the ocean with plastics. The politicization of
environmentalism has narrowed the focus so much. We need environmental
protection on a massive scale.

------
shoo
I think this is a very important point to understand: regardless of if you
believe particular geoengineering approaches are too dangerous or too little
understood to apply, at some point when the threat & the damage from global
warming is no longer possible to ignore, it will not be surprising if a single
actor begins unilaterally executing a relatively cheap & feasible
geoengineering project:

> Solar geoengineering isn’t only technically feasible, it’s a bargain. Next
> to the trillions in costs from unmitigated climate change, and even the
> expense of cutting CO₂, solar geoengineering costs practically nothing. If
> anything, it’s too cheap. A program that releases SO₂ to decrease average
> temperatures by about 0.1C would cost less than $5 billion per year. This
> should prompt the world to prepare for its inevitability. Dozens of
> countries have both the capacity and possible motivation. The operative word
> is “when,” not “if.”

Ignoring the unwanted environmental side effects of pumping SO2 into the
atmosphere, one thing this article does not mention is that the results of geo
engineering will be non uniform. Just like global warming will causes non
uniform temperature & climate change over the globe, similarly geoengineering
approaches will have non uniform results -- some regions will be relative
winners and some regions will be relative losers -- getting a larger share of
the unwanted consequences of geo engineering with few or no corresponding
benefits.

~~~
not2b
If it is going to be done, either it needs to be an internationally
coordinated effort or the countries that object will treat it as an act of
war.

~~~
sterlind
The resulting nuclear winter should further reduce temperatures, so it's a
win-win!

------
goda90
I think I saw a movie about this. They built a fast train that could survive
the deep freeze by staying in motion.

But more seriously. Sunlight that hits the planet(and isn't reflected back
out) is a different variable than solar heat that stays in the atmosphere. Our
carbon levels are increasing the second variable. Trying to counteract that by
lowering the first seems like it would have tons of unintended consequences.

~~~
pirsquare
I think the movie is Snowpiercer? Great movie by the way.

~~~
yellowapple
A few crackpot headcanonists believe it to be a grimdark sequel to Charlie and
the Chocolate Factory, and given the evidence I find it hard to disagree.

------
unchocked
On our current carbon trajectory, we're committing future generations to
interventions on this scale, or to catastrophe.

A better, but more expensive idea is to build a giant sunshade at Earth-Sun
Lagrange 1, a gravitationally stable point well beyond the Moon's orbit. It
could be constructed with raw materials from the Moon and near-Earth
asteroids, and the logistical capacity is within the design goals of SpaceX's
Starship fleet.

It's expensive, and it's a giant band-aid until planetary CO2 removal is
feasible. But building it would make humanity a truly interplanetary species,
and benefit all of humanity for about the same cost as a city on Mars.

~~~
shoo
The giant sunshade idea is much more expensive and fragile than relatively
dumb alternatives such as spraying SO2 or water into the atmosphere to deflect
sunlight, I don't really understand how sunshade could be argued as a "better"
solution.

Re "band-aid" \-- I agree -- all solutions of this form that aim to partially
mitigate one unwanted consequences of rising CO2 without addressing other
consequences or halting the rise of CO2 are unlikely to result in a stable
solution & instead just buy time.

~~~
unchocked
A sunshade doesn't involve chemical modification of our atmosphere, and its
effects are reversible (it's a solar sail and can change its orbit when
required).

As to expense, it's an opportunity for the space industry to contribute to
solving the #1 problem on Earth. The Starship fleet is being built anyway.

As a fringe benefit, if made of thin-film photovoltaics a sunshade could
generate ~300TW of electricity. Compare that to current terrestrial
consumption of 17TW. It creates enough energy and in-space manufacturing
capacity to unlock the solar system.

------
reggieband
The Simpsons Did It? [1]

1.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4)

~~~
vulcan01
as with most things, the Simpsons did it first...

~~~
hellisothers
Actually Highlander 2 did it first :D
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_II:_The_Quickening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_II:_The_Quickening)

------
mrfusion
We jumped into global lockdowns throwing millions out of work and halving
major Economies with little information on what the effects would be.

I worry if people get in a panic about global warming there could be similar
rash actions that might be worse than the problem.

Mass panic feedback loops are definitely a threat we should now be aware of.

(Edit. Of course global warming is a big problem and this could be a good
solution.)

~~~
gnramires
Think of it another way. We've endured a harsh global economic crisis for
about 380k deaths (or 0.5% mortality). The human and environmental costs of
climate change could be significantly worse, and we know the cost is probably
on par with the costs of the pandemic (and it can be distributed over longer
time frames). We absolutely can deal with it. The problem is that a pandemic
seems very urgent and scary and climate change is something that will affect
us in a few decades. Dealing with it in panic mode would be very costly.

------
legitster
Some of these methods are surprisingly affordable. But I think it's reasonable
for the time to keep them as a last ditch option. Even if we can reflect back
enough sunlight, it doesn't solve pollution or ocean acidification. And I
think the last thing that needs to be broadcast in Western countries is that
we have a very effective way of passing the buck.

------
013a
> After an attempt to stop global warming via climate engineering
> catastrophically backfires, creating a new ice age in 2014, the remnants of
> humanity have taken to a circumnavigational train, the Snowpiercer, run by
> recluse transportation magnate Wilford. By 2031, the passengers on the train
> have become segregated, with the elite in the extravagant front cars and the
> poor in squalid tail compartments controlled by armed guards. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer)

~~~
rasz
>By 2045, humans have built weather machines to control the warming climate
due to climate change and global warming. The machines break down when one day
it begins to snow and doesn't stop. Whatever humans remain, live in
underground bunkers to escape the extreme cold.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colony_(2013_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colony_\(2013_film\))

------
moneytide1
Geoengineering cooling concepts to counter heating due to emissions is one
thing, but even when we commercialize fusion and it becomes extremely cheap to
purchase huge amounts of emission-less electricity for high heat and pressure
of industrial activity (exponential ramping up of metal&mineral
smelting/welding/stamping/cutting/shipping) - all of this activity will be a
significant source of heat.

The less toxic atmosphere of a terrestrial-based Type 1 civilization would
still require planetary cooling mechanisms.

------
Animats
India might try this out of desperation. Major cities in India are becoming
too hot to be habitable. India is a big enough country to do it alone and has
a big enough problem to try it.

------
ncmncm
Reflecting insolation does nothing for the collapse of ecosystems that is the
principle damage from elevated temperatures.

Ocean acidification continues increasing, soon eliminating the base of the
marine food chain, and the main source of protein for much of the world's
human population.

To be useful, a geoengineering program should increase bio-uptake of CO2 in
the oceans, driving up the pH. This was tried in a small experiment scattering
iron-containing dust, but the results were strangely confiscated and
suppressed, and implausible consequences published instead. I would like to
know more about the whole event, but it is hard to find out anything.

The Atlantic ocean gets a big periodic influx of iron dust from winds off the
Sahara, but the Pacific doesn't.

------
kilotaras
I recently listened to Not Cool episode on geoengineering [1]. Two important
points that I learned about:

\- Question over who holds the dial (Russia's ok with some warming, India not
so much) can easily lead to nuclear war.

\- Just telling people "we're considering pumping atmosphere with a gas that
causes acid rains in order to cool the planet" makes them reevaluate how
serious of a problem climate change is.

[1] [https://futureoflife.org/2019/09/17/not-cool-ep-6-alan-
roboc...](https://futureoflife.org/2019/09/17/not-cool-ep-6-alan-robock-on-
geoengineering/)

------
ninju
The preamble of the movie Snowpiercer describes a the release of a chemical
into the atmosphere, in an effort to combat global warming, which results in
runaway rapid cooling that plunges the entire world into an eternal Ice Age.

So now life is imitates the movies (I need more popcorn!!)

------
trustmeimdrunk
We could build cooling devices on the poles. A dome around them to reflect
light and (maybe) generate (some) of the necessary energy. There are well
developed solutions to generate energy from waves and ocean currents. The
cooling units also have pumps to essentially produce ice. The kinetic energy
solutions are long snakelike tubes which can also serve to transport the

------
kaikai
The article warns against single actors taking drastic and risky action in the
future, and it's already happened with ocean fertilization:
[https://geog.ucsb.edu/rogue-iron-fertilization-experiment-
ou...](https://geog.ucsb.edu/rogue-iron-fertilization-experiment-outrages-
scientists/)

------
YeGoblynQueenne
I think this is a great idea that should not be dismissed simply out of
childish fears and baseless concerns about runaway cooling and so on. At the
end of the day, even if something goes wrong and we completely wreck the
environment, we can always go and live on our backup planet.

------
ortusdux
Reminds me of the guy who dumped 100 tons of iron sulfate into the ocean to
trigger an algae bloom in hopes of selling the carbon credits.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_George](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_George)

~~~
dr_dshiv
I love this guy. He proved that it works! Precautionary principle is riskier
than it seems?

------
Zelizz
This sounds like a really great way to make solar power less efficient, make
us more reliant on fossil fuels, and do absolutely nothing about the
acidification of the ocean or rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

------
dr_dshiv
Marine cloud brightening. You are just lofting salt into the ocean air. Put
some lofting turbines on the back of cargo ships and you have a massive and
(probably!) controllable effect on albedo.

------
not2b
But: the sea still keeps getting more acid, so no more coral reefs and severe
damage to shellfish. And once such an effort gets started, we're committed,
we'll have to keep doing it.

------
quantified
And crop growth, ocean photosynthesis? How are those affected?

~~~
avmich
Proportionally? Say, if you reduce solar energy influx by 1%, that's how much
less biosphere receives?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _if you reduce solar energy influx by 1%, that 's how much less biosphere
> receives?_

Biospheres are complex, potentially chaotic, systems.

Consider a much-less complex, less-likely chaotic, system: a company. You
reduce revenues 1%. As a result, do all other line items fall by 1%? Of course
not. For some businesses, if you reduce revenues by even 10% fast enough, it
kills the beast.

------
maerF0x0
I thought it was going to say something like accelerate our orbit so we go a
few cm/km (whatever) further to balance incoming energy with outgoing...

see: Mercury vs Neptune

------
poma88
There is NO reliable research about this topic. Preliminary findings indicate
winners and losers across world regions. It could be a source of major
conflict.

~~~
MattGaiser
Anyone have a map of the winners and losers?

------
amachefe
A more virulent virus than covid-19 that will force world wide lock-down for
at least 6months, and mortality rate of about 30%

------
jmcqk6
Shading the sun like this opens the door to a very dystopic future where
sunlight itself is commoditized.

------
crb002
Larry Niven in Ringworld had carbon nanotube dongled solar shields - that was
the 70’s?

~~~
sliken
Ha, indeed, they were how they created a day/night cycle for the ring. It also
provided an amazing amount of power for the ring's systems and defenses.

------
ck2
If we are going to talk fantasy engineering there's a perfectly good moon up
there we could move into a total lunar ellipse anytime we need it, say a few
days a year.

Of course by then we've mastered FTL so no need.

~~~
jvm_
Could we change the inclination(?) of the moon's orbit to cause solar eclipses
once a month? Would that be enough? Paging /r/theydidthemath

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
I'll give you this instead:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space%3A_1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space%3A_1999)

 _Wheee!_

------
baggy_trough
Unless we can come up with carbon neutral energy sources that are cheaper than
(untaxed) fossil fuels, we are going to wind up needing something like this.

~~~
Barrin92
It's always fascinating that people are willing to consider geoengineering the
climate of the entire planet instead of re-engineering the tax code. Tells us
a lot about the system we're living in.

We can block the sun out or shoot ourselves to Mars, but apparently can't pass
a law on the consumption of oil

~~~
MattGaiser
> but apparently can't pass a law on the consumption of oil

Geoengineering requires no other change on anyone's part. Except for the
funding (which could fit into any government budget with little notice),
nothing changes for most people.

~~~
elygre
It feels to me that the basic idea is that something changes for pretty much
all the people, but nobody really knows what.

------
imhoguy
Wouldn't it be easier to stop all economies for a month or two every year? And
employ entire population to plant trees.

~~~
MattGaiser
This proposal costs $5 billion a year. It is a heck of a lot easier than
losing 8-16% of GDP.

~~~
yiyus
The $5 billion figure in the article is the cost of spraying the atmosphere,
creating a new virus every year would be way cheaper (I am not saying it would
be a good idea). But, as it has happened with this virus, reducing sunlight
would have huge effects in all economic sectors. Agriculture is the most
obvious one, but tourism for example would be very affected too, real state
markets may radically change, solar power would be much less efficient... It
may be much less or much more than 8-16% GDP, I do not know (specially in an
hypothetical scenario in which climate change may already be devastating), but
for sure it would not be free.

------
viburnum
This buys, what, ten years of the status quo? Sooner or later carbon has to be
zero (and no, carbon capture is not going to scale up to be a solution).

------
VMisTheWay
Reminds me of the Coronavirus lockdown. Save 0.5% of the sickest/old/obese
people, cause the 99.5% to develop drug addictions, suicide, riot, undergo
domestic abuse, disrupt supply chain, shortages, etc...

But look, we flattened the curve!

