Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering • Hacker News Board

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#161

Post by schiffern » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:26 PM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #113

schiffern wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nations don't have national sovereignty over their slice of the atmosphere, then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime? [For clarity I don't particularly disagree with this stance, but my mostly-overlooked point is that:] If people really think this, why is it that (on HN in particular) we overwhelmingly hear this point made in the context of geoengineering, and not for regular old pollution? I…

"then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime?" We are maybe not saying that in one voice, but many people, including myself are saying exactly that since quite a while. Same with polluting the groundwater, or the ocean. One has to differentiate, of course and it is scale that matters. One coal fire is neglectible, but powering the economy with (maybe even unfiltered) coal plants is not. Yet most na…

> One coal fire is neglectible, but...

... a balloon releasing under a pound of SO2 is an international outrage?

My concern is exactly that we don't have a proper sense of scale on this issue.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#162

Post by concordDance » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:29 PM UTC

dubcanada wrote: post #79

I really don’t like the idea of solar geoengineering. If we start sending up sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and it fixes the problem. What do you think we’re going to do? Stop caring about global warming entirely, and pump way more green house gases… why wouldn’t we? We can just fix it with more sulfur dioxide. Then you send up more and more and more. And eventually something breaks. Now for some reason a countri…

Every solution can potentially have side effects. My attempt to improve a work process by making a new UI could cause an incident, no matter how many reviewers and testers we have.

It'll never be the case that "all parties are working towards the same thing". So the actual choices are between continuing on the current trajectory or trying to change things for the better.

And honestly the track record of the latter (e.g. electricity, heart transplants, campfires) is more good than bad, even if it is always a mix.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#163

Post by dgroshev » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:30 PM UTC

ibz wrote: post #123

HPsquared wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make the same argument against medical care. "If we start healing the sick, people will stop taking care of their health". That's not even considering potential side effects of therapies, medicines, etc. Any action has a balance of good and bad, both directly and indirectly.

And that's essentially what has happened. We are sicker than ever because we have easy cures. The problem is that modern medicine works on the symptoms, not on root causes. So the more we "cure" symptoms, the more sick we become, overall.

This is very, very much not true. Do vaccines or antibiotics "work on symptoms"? Do knee replacements "work on symptoms" of our bodies being unable to regenerate cartilage? The only superficial "work on symptoms" treatments I can think of are palliative cancer care or cosmetic treatments like fillers.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#164

Post by dgroshev » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:35 PM UTC

immmmmm wrote: post #111

tonnydourado wrote: post #97

Maybe I'm missing something, but besides reducing the Earth's temperature, vulcano eruptions have also caused famines, because reduced solar light impacts crop yield. We have much better agricultural technology now, but: 1. Is there even any research saying we can counteract the reduction in solar light by "planting smarter"? 2. Agricultural technology is very unevenly distributed. If solar light gets reduced globall…

> Maybe I'm missing something, but besides reducing the Earth's temperature, vulcano eruptions have also caused famines, because reduced solar light impacts crop yield. There is already around -0.9W/m2 of radiative forcing due to shipping (sulphur in shipping fuels) which is massive compared to volcanos. > We have much better agricultural technology now Yes and no, "modern" agriculture depends massively in fossile fu…

> There is already around -0.9W/m2 of radiative forcing due to shipping (sulphur in shipping fuels) which is massive compared to volcanos.

It follows then that the effort to clean up ocean freight will backfire by accelerating global warming unless we do deliberate geoengineering to replicate the unintended forcing.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#165

Post by somat » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:36 PM UTC

The theory goes something like. volcanoes put a geologic amount of what we would consider polluting gasses into the atmosphere. why then is there a tendency for global cooling after a large volcano eruption and not global warming? The answer is that volcano plumes may emit a large amount of sulfur dioxide which has the cooling effect.

But we worked very hard to remove sulfur compounds from our fuels, after all nobody wants acid rain. What if we acted too soon, what if those same sulfur compounds would mitigate global warming, perhaps we should have left them in?

The primary problem with this action the that the sulfur is in the wrong place, too low in the atmosphere. Perhaps the solution is high sulfur jet fuel.

Personally I think that is was global engineering that got us into this mess and it will be global engineering that gets us out of it.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#166

Post by qikInNdOutReply » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:39 PM UTC

somat wrote: post #165

The theory goes something like. volcanoes put a geologic amount of what we would consider polluting gasses into the atmosphere. why then is there a tendency for global cooling after a large volcano eruption and not global warming? The answer is that volcano plumes may emit a large amount of sulfur dioxide which has the cooling effect. But we worked very hard to remove sulfur compounds from our fuels, after all nobody…

But this does not get us out the mess, it just kicks the can down the road, and if we stop kicking once, it explodes.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#167

Post by schiffern » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:39 PM UTC

MrOwnPut wrote: post #46

marginalia_nu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? Yeah I'm not sure that's how the atmosphere works. Surely this stuff would diffuse and affect the atmosphere globally.

Okay... who would judge those who want to do experiments to the global atmosphere from their country. (though as another user points out this would diffuse globally, but still be concentrated locally)

>Okay... who would judge those who want to do experiments to the global atmosphere from their country.

Replace "experiments" with the more general/relevant "atmosphere modifications," which includes pollution for amoral profit motive.

What makes "experiments" special? Is that reasoning morally justifiable, given the many millions who will die in the "business as usual" case?

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#168

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:40 PM UTC

MrOwnPut wrote: post #57

AlexAltea wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every local action has global consequences. Throwing a dead battery into a dump -> Battery acid gets dragged by the rain -> Polluting a river -> Flows polluting a sea -> Currents polluting all oceans. Of course effects become smaller as scope grows, but still in many instances it's measurable, see Fukushima.

Yes, you're missing my point to the GP, and he missed the point to the GGP. It's in Mexico's right to stop experiments on the global atmosphere from their country.

[deleted]

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#169

Post by eloff » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:42 PM UTC

marginalia_nu wrote: post #37

wolverine876 wrote: post #29

This isn't a Mexican company; the person behind it is. > Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former director of hardware at Y Combinator ... he started tinkering with releasing sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere with balloons, raised venture capital to fund the startup, and brought on co-founder Andrew Song to manage sales. Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok…

> [...] experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? Yeah I'm not sure that's how the atmosphere works. Surely this stuff would diffuse and affect the atmosphere globally.

The plan was to release 10 to 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. I don’t think it would affect anything at all. The experiment seems of questionable value, but it doesn’t seem dangerous.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#170

Post by schiffern » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 12:44 PM UTC

MrOwnPut wrote: post #57

AlexAltea wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every local action has global consequences. Throwing a dead battery into a dump -> Battery acid gets dragged by the rain -> Polluting a river -> Flows polluting a sea -> Currents polluting all oceans. Of course effects become smaller as scope grows, but still in many instances it's measurable, see Fukushima.

Yes, you're missing my point to the GP, and he missed the point to the GGP. It's in Mexico's right to stop experiments on the global atmosphere from their country.

Didn't miss the point, just observing how it's an irrelevant and counterproductive distraction to the main issue. That sort of thing matters to some people.

As for the rest. I fully agree with sokoloff's reply.