
Cloud brightening experiment tests tool to slow climate change - redwood
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_28470305/climate-change-controversial-cloud-brightening-project-proposed-moss
======
gdubs
The Whole Earth Discipline by Stewart Brand is worth reading if this subject
interests you. [1]. Brand created the Whole Earth Catalogue, which inspired
the first wave of Silicon Valley PC pioneers (Steve Jobs most famously). It's
the catalogue that ends with the phrase "Stay hungry, stay foolish."

Brand was a founding member of the "Green" movement, which was formed to
combat the predicted "Population Bomb" (something Brand addresses in the
book).

In later years, Brand has sought more pragmatic viewpoints on the environment.
The book specifically address geo-engineering, nuclear power, genetically
engineered crops, and other 'hot topics'.

I've mentioned it here before, but worth mentioning again because it's a long,
enjoyable read -- thought provoking, conversation starter.

1: [http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Earth-Discipline-
RestoredWildlan...](http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Earth-Discipline-
RestoredWildlands-Geoengineering/dp/0143118285)

------
stared
Climate is a big system and we know only some parts of it. Trying to cure
symptoms may have grave consequences. (Think about medicine - there are many
tests before it can be used; many early drugs had horrible side-effect. But in
the case of Earth we have only one run.)

~~~
danieltillett
Actually with many medicines you only have one run - it does not matter if a
lethal side effect is rare if it happens to affect you.

We are already running a massive experiment on the earth; we are pumping huge
amounts of green house gases into the atmosphere and we are not really sure
what will happen. If things go bad really quickly I would like to have some
options (even if high risk) rather than be left with nothing.

~~~
stared
Sure, a medicine may be lethal (but after many trials, errors, cases etc -
people developed efficient drugs and medical procedures). But there are many
people; it's a big difference if one dies or everyone dies.

"Even more experimenting" is a bad idea. The current situation is bad and we
should change its causes. (Otherwise it's like healing tooth with
painkillers.) Here I would guess that the average value of risk is highly
negative (as in any case with dealing with complex systems).

And there are many imaginable consequences, which are far worse than the
current pace of global worming. E.g. poisoning biosphere, accelerating global
warming, etc.

And, no, global warming is not an asteroid impact (i.e. killing everyone and
everything), so "all or nothing" is a poor mentality (and deadly dangerous!).

~~~
danieltillett
The people involved in this research are not suggesting we try this - they are
suggesting we work on alternatives in case we really need them.

I agree 100% that we need to do far more to reduce our emissions, but right
now not enough is being done. If we don't get our act together in time, or
things on the warming front move faster than everyone hopes, then we need
alternatives. We only have one world.

------
danieltillett
_" Personally, I doubt that the world is ready for this," said Stephen
Gardiner, a University of Washington philosophy professor who studies the
ethics of environmental policies. "Geoengineering raises huge ethical and
political questions, nationally and internationally.”_

Am I the only one sick of self-appointed ethicists opposing everything. I have
yet to read a quote where one said something is good and should be done - I
can see them saying “Clean drinking water: Personally, I doubt that the world
is ready for this”.

Edit. These guys are trying to develop an insurance policy for us if it turns
out climate change is worse than expected.

 _The scientists say there will be deep satisfaction if their project
succeeds, but far better would be a future without global warming._

 _" We would be perfectly happy," Cooper said, "if our method works
beautifully -- and it never needs to be used.”_

Rather than support this the ethicists have to oppose even having an
alternative option. Much better to just do nothing and let the planet burn
down - at least the world will be ready for that.

~~~
InclinedPlane
There's an underlying element here. Some people have developed a sort of
belief system around the idea of carbon emissions being intrinsically amoral.
For them, man-made CO2 emissions are dirty, gross, and fundamentally sinful.
Ameliorating the impact of CO2 on the climate is thus something like
purchasing a religious indulgence in that worldview. Anything that enables
continued carbon emissions without humanity suffering the consequences is thus
seen as extremely morally suspect.

~~~
danieltillett
Yes there is a bit of this (the beaver's dam is good and part of nature while
the human dam is bad), but the previous thinking was more if we as scientists
provide alternatives then the politicians will decide they don't need to do
anything about emissions. There has been a bit of an epiphany within the
scientific community of late that we might have left it too late to solve just
by reducing emissions and that we also need to work on alternatives just in
case.

~~~
mangeletti
I think there is something intuitively different between the engineering of
non-human animals in nature[1] that has gone on for millions of years and
which the rest of nature has evolved along side of, and the human
engineering[2] that has drastically changed the face of the planet in less
than 200 years, rendering much of nature extinct in the meantime.

1\.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/American...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/AmericanBeaver.JPG)

2\.
[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-07/20/13406...](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-07/20/13406959_11n.jpg)

~~~
danieltillett
The difference is we (humans) are better at engineering than beavers (not a
put down of beavers as they are amazing).

------
michaelmcdonald
Apparently these guys have never watched the movie Snowpiercer...

