Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 272 posts

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#171

Post by jxf »

mcv wrote: post #87
perihelions wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that ordinary SO₂ pollution doesn't make its way into the stratosphere. It's a different problem.

Isn't that kind of SO2 release the cause of acid rain? Because that's not good. If we're going to release those millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere anyway, maybe it makes sense to release it into the stratosphere instead, to duplicate the cooling effect of the volcano. Although that's not so easily done. Also, apart from a cooling effect, what other effects did that volcanic release of SO2 have?

The cooling effect comes in part from a reduction of light reaching the Earth's surface, lowering the amount of energy that plants receive to grow.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#172

Post by hutzlibu »

schiffern wrote: post #161
hutzlibu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

But the idea is, that this will be scaled up.

But yes, most people are not good at math or basic science, to understand the proportions.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#174

Post by schiffern »

jaggs wrote: post #145
jaggs wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Industries don't try to scale up pollution. The pollution is a by-product of trying to scale up profits. And one wrong doesn't make the other a right.

Not sure I follow you any more. In what way would you like to rethink this ethical schema? What schema?

The wildly disproportionate pollution vs geoengineering double standard that paralyzes us in the face of arguably the greatest existential threat to our species (perhaps second only to nuclear weapons).

>> apparently the rule here is that you can hurt people (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help people!

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#175

Post by prepend »

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…

I think it depends on how much you think climate change’s temperature increase will negatively affect the world.

Since it’s impossible to reverse the predicted temperature change through behavior, if you want to limit or reverse the temperature change then stuff like geoengineering is the only way to limit temperature change while the world takes a century or two to go from industrial to renewable.

If the idea is to make everyone suffer for their sins, or fantasize about Armageddon, then we can prohibit all geoengineering.

There are difficult trade offs and stuff like changing the atmosphere to cool down has negative effects as well. But it may be better than 3 degrees warmer in 2100.

I think these ideas have been explored, pretty realistically, in recent sci-fi books by Neal Stephenson and Kim Stanley Robinson.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#176

Post by prepend »

mschuster91 wrote: post #152
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…

> 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. This is precisely why there are such immense amounts spent on geoengineering research - the big polluters do everything they can to keep making money out o…

> The solution to climate change is not waiting for some kind of "tech miracle" (be it carbon capture, sulfur dioxide, H2 electrolysis, nuclear fusion, ...), it is to get rid of fossil fuel usage.

These aren’t exclusive options and it’s odd to see them in opposition. Wouldn’t it make sense to geoengineer while we get rid of fossil fuel usage?

I expect it to take 50-100 years to stop fossil fuel usage. If there’s a sudden stop then I think the wars and chaos will result in people who pollute a lot killing off and stopping the people who don’t.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#177

Post by metalspot »

LatteLazy wrote: post #173

We have proven conclusively that we will NOT reduce emissions. So we have 2 options: Geo-engineering OR catastrophic climate change. Choose.

we actually only have 1 option, which is that climate changes, no matter what humans do, and we can change it on the margins though are actions as well.

dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere is geo-engineering. it is just unintentional.

saying that climate change (of the anthropocentric CO2 caused variety) will necessarily be catastrophic is scientifically unsupportable. there is a possibility that it will be catastrophic, but definitely not a certainty.

humans are very capable of adapting to the scientific consensus worst case estimates for temperature increase. if those worst case estimates come true the adaptation will be messy, but mostly for social and institutional reasons, not biological ones.

even if humans could prevent climate change now we would almost certainly face climate change on a similar scale that we couldn't prevent at some point in the future so working on our capacity for adaptability is a better long term survival strategy in either case.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#178

Post by xwolfi »

schiffern wrote: post #74
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…

> so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? So it's okay to do experiments with the atmosphere, as long as you re-brand them as "pollution" instead of as "experiments"? (and of course, organizationally separate the scientists performing the data collection/analysis steps)

Well it s not an experiment if it's pollution: it's a compromise. We know we degrade it, we dont know an alternative, or dont want to try.

An experiment is limited in time, serves no purpose but knowledge acquisition, and can fail. When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail, and people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise.

A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#179

Post by schiffern »

chriswarbo wrote: post #90
schiffern wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don’t think we should be messing around with the earth until we can actually say that all parties are working towards the same thing. "Unattainable perfection of human nature must be achieved before we can even try fixing something." Xkcd already debunked this type of argument. https://xkcd.com/1232/

They're not saying "we've solved all problems" or "we understand everything". They're saying "all parties are working towards the same thing". For example, "Acme Sulphur Dioxide Corp" may not have the same goals as scientists, governments, or the general population.

I know what they're saying, and it's equally unattainable.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#180

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

concordDance wrote: post #151
qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who benefits from non-responsibility? Why are we not capable to produce figures capable to shoulder public burdens and are thrustworthy enough? Why do we prioritize moral shortcomings of a person/character over the effectiveness of the work when discussing politics? Whore, drink and murder all night for all i care, if the individual can prevent ecologic collapse and economic collapse during the day, thats still a goo…

> Whore, drink and murder all night for all i care, if the individual can prevent ecologic collapse and economic collapse during the day, thats still a good deal, even if i would be among the murder victims. This is too simplistic due to second order effects. E.g. visibly doing those things makes it far more likely other people in slightly lower positions of power will try it on, many crossing the boundaries of what…

Classic corruption infects mostly along the "i can extract value from him by threatening to tell the law" lines.

We are worser of then that now, because the politics and the law production is corrupted.

And to reduce that a start would be to focus on the law generated, to have that uncorrupted. If there is laws that forbid politicians from taking money, classic corruption might even reemerge.

Post reply on HN