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

241–250 of 272 posts

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#241

Post by aylmao »

andyjsong wrote: post #240
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…

Andrew Song, Co-Founder of Make Sunsets here. > Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? After they were forced to stop, We chose Mexico as our initial launch site because deployment in the tropics have greater cooling per gram via increased particle residence time [1] (another source)[2]. Luke also bought land in…

Unrelated, but man do the header images for the blog make the experience rather uncanny. Especially the ones with inaccurate maps [1][2]. I've seen AI art make very realistic faces, but is this state of the art when generating other things, like the aforementioned maps or the Golden Gate Bridge?

[1] https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/the-secret-weapon-to-figh...

[2] https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/calculating-cooling

[3] https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/test1

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#242

Post by mc32 »

schiffern wrote: post #85
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.

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…

I don't think they do. They have sovereignty over their airspace but not atmosphere and certainly not the cone into infinity.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#243

Post by daqhris »

andyjsong wrote: post #240
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…

Andrew Song, Co-Founder of Make Sunsets here. > Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? After they were forced to stop, We chose Mexico as our initial launch site because deployment in the tropics have greater cooling per gram via increased particle residence time [1] (another source)[2]. Luke also bought land in…

Thanks for clearing up this controversial topic and showing up to give a detailed explanation.

Without your intervention, I would have kept some speculations as reasonable opinions.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#244

Post by prepend »

mschuster91 wrote: post #200
prepend wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 su…

> Wouldn’t it make sense to geoengineer while we get rid of fossil fuel usage? No it doesn't because even the perspective removes the incentive on fixing our unhealthy dependency on fossil fuels.

So what do you think we should do about rising temperature change and the harm that causes?

Even if we stop using fossil fuels, models still show a temperature change. What do you propose about that?

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#245

Post by wolverine876 »

eloff wrote: post #207
dahart wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn’t whether 3 balloons of 500 grams of sulphur dioxide is dangerous, the question is should rando startups be allowed to put toxic chemicals in our air. What if they decided their experiment of 1.5kb of sulphur dioxide was a success? What is the obvious next step? 1500kg, 1.5Mg? Ten more startups doing the same, realizing whoever gets there first will make money?

Sulfur dioxide is naturally occurring, released by volcanoes in massive amounts. In these kinds of qualities it’s pretty safe by comparison. I think we’re being way too cautious when it comes to geoengineering, at a time when we should be aggressively testing hypotheses to get some actual options on the table.

Arsenic, uranium, almost everything is naturally occurring. Forest fires and, as you note, volcanoes are naturally occurring. That doesn't make them safe.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#246

Post by wolverine876 »

kragen wrote: post #228
dahart wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn’t whether 3 balloons of 500 grams of sulphur dioxide is dangerous, the question is should rando startups be allowed to put toxic chemicals in our air. What if they decided their experiment of 1.5kb of sulphur dioxide was a success? What is the obvious next step? 1500kg, 1.5Mg? Ten more startups doing the same, realizing whoever gets there first will make money?

presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved, not when you're doing safe experiments to find out whether the potentially dangerous thing has potential benefits that might justify riskier experiments also sulfite isn't within the usual meaning of 'toxic chemical', it's a common antioxidant food additive, although lik…

> presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved

Who decides where that point is? Some people with money or the people of Mexico?

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#247

Post by yellowapple »

schiffern wrote: post #85
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.

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…

> The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters.

Worse: if your intent is to externalize costs onto everyone else, that's fine and dandy, but if your intent is to fix those externalities then you're the asshole, because reasons.

It does seem to be a common thread - not just on HN, but HN does attract entrepreneurs and aspirants thereof, who in turn tend to skew religiously capitalist, so it's unsurprising that it's a bit more pronounced here. The sort of attitude on display transcends climate denialism and jumps straight to what seems to be climate hostility: "I have a God-given right to harm everyone around me to make a quick buck and fuck you for daring to do anything about it".

The reaction to geoengineering is consistent with reaction to ecoactivism: hostile, and demonstrating an absense of self-awareness. Yes, geoengineers and ecoactivists alike can be misguided sometimes; no, that does not mean they're in any way the "bad guys" for daring to at least try to do something about the Cult of Capital destroying the Earth in the name of the Holy Profit.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#248

Post by yellowapple »

concordDance wrote: post #159
iso1631 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And of course entire countries are being wiped out due to global (20% US, 11% China, 7% Russia) CO2 emissions

Entire countries? IPCC projections don't indicate any island nations going underwater in the next two centuries.

If Bloomberg is to be believed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-c...), climate change is killing an Ireland's worth of people every year.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#249

Post by yellowapple »

jl6 wrote: post #110
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…

Yes, the atmosphere is fundamentally a commons. Some pollution impacts mostly at the location of emission and can be regulated by local/national law, but a great deal of pollution (notably CO2) has a global impact. Same goes for oceans. There are many international treaties and conventions that recognize this, but they clearly don't go far enough, and we run into the "fear of a world government" issue here.

I'd be entirely unsurprised if countries eventually start considering disproportionate pollution to be an act of war.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#250

Post by sacnoradhq »

will5421 wrote: post #192
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.

The difference is that geoengineering affects the commons. I don’t mind people doing things to their own bodies, I do mind them messing with my atmosphere.

Exactly.

1. Industrial civilizations have been using the sky as an open sewer for emissions. Before that it was soot and lead (TEL).

2. No quick fixes with solar shades, adding chemicals, or fractioning air gases (good luck with scaling that). Get the carbon out of the air by growing stuff and sequestering it at the bottom of the ocean.

Post reply on HN