Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth The Almighty Buck United States

$100 Million Solar Geoengineering Research Program Proposed (theguardian.com) 70

Posted by BeauHD from the drastic-times-call-for-drastic-measures dept.
The US should establish a multimillion-dollar research program on solar geoengineering, according to the country's national science academy. The Guardian reports: In a report it recommends funding of $100 million to $200 million over five years to better understand the feasibility of interventions to dim the sun, the risk of harmful unintended consequences and how such technology could be governed in an ethical way. The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) said cutting fossil fuel emissions remained the most urgent and important action to tackle the climate crisis. But it said the worryingly slow progress on climate action meant all options needed to be understood.

The report considers three types of solar geoengineering to allow more heat to escape the Earth's atmosphere: injecting tiny reflective particles into the stratosphere to block sunlight; using the particles to make low-lying clouds over the oceans more reflective; and thinning high-altitude cirrus clouds. Major volcanic eruptions are already known to cool the climate by pumping particles high into the atmosphere. [...]

Proponents of geoengineering argue that impacts of global heating could be so great that every option to limit these must be explored. Opponents argue that such research increases the risk that such technologies could be deployed, perhaps by rogue states, instead of cutting emissions. Critics also warn that solar geoengineering could cause damage such as crop failures, and would need to be maintained to avoid a sudden hike in temperature, unless carbon emissions fall rapidly.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

$100 Million Solar Geoengineering Research Program Proposed More

$100 Million Solar Geoengineering Research Program Proposed

Comments Filter:
  • This is pissing into the wind. Are they even serious?

  • If the idea is to reduce carbon emissions how about they use it to subsidize electric cars for people who have old clunkers that they hang on to because they can[t afford an EV?

    Or fund research into furthering carbon neutral or zero emission power generation?

    Thee're are Probably lots of things that would be more effective and a LOT safer in the long run.

    • Affordability aside, I still cant use EV because a lack of charging. Its a 96mi commute to my office. Pre-covid, when we actually had an influx of new customers, I drove in twice a week for onsite work and new installs. Id say another 30 mi while in the area. Factor in sitting still in traffic and running A/C and I would be panicked.

      Im the guy that wont go below 1/4 tank after having to hoof it a few times when I had a car with a shitty gas gauge back when i was young (and dinosaur roamed the earth). One a

      • Affordability aside, I still cant use EV because a lack of charging. Its a 96mi commute to my office. Pre-covid, when we actually had an influx of new customers, I drove in twice a week for onsite work and new installs. Id say another 30 mi while in the area. Factor in sitting still in traffic and running A/C and I would be panicked.

        The Model 3 Long Range has 350 miles of range or so - would give you over 100 miles to spare (more than a 1/4 tank equivalent) in your described usage. Also, sitting in traffic with an EV doesn't guzzle range like it does with an ICEV - you aren't constantly consuming fuel to keep the engine idling, only using whatever is required at the moment, and a low-speed traffic jam is actually close to optimal conditions for maximizing EV range.

      • Tesla is the main holdout for universal charging plugs. The Type 2 connector is the EU standard and probably will be in the US as well but Tesla has the largest charging network and fleet so we are looking at a format war here unless the Feds get involved and force Tesla to open up their network and enforce standards.

        • There's no reason to change Tesla's standard. Most Tesla owners (read: Probably all. Myself included) have a J-1772 adapter that lets them plug into the most common L2 charging stations and Tesla, long ago, made their patents publicly available and has been vocal that if other auto makers want to use the Supercharger network that they can do so as long as they contribute to the cost and upkeep. No other automaker has taken them up on that...my best guess is that's just sheer hubris and refusal to give Tesla

          • Sure, whatever works. End of the day what needs to happen is any EV should be able to pull into any EV charger and fast charge and the charging supplier gets paid. Just like gas stations today, I don't have a brand specific gas nozzle or gas type.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by e3m4n ( 947977 )
            its patented, so at any point, any point Tesla could start charging, and/or revoke licensing in order to stifle competition. The charging network should never be owned by one company, thats a recipe for the same sort of control that Mark Zuckerberg is getting hammered for now. We dont need any more too-big-to-fails. Make it NEMA and let any swinging dick build a refueling/recharging station. There should be no reason other automakers should have to contribute to the cost and upkeep. Car companies dont contr

            • https://www.tesla.com/about/le... [tesla.com]

              Legal Effect

              The Pledge, which is irrevocable and legally binding on Tesla and its successors, is a "standstill," meaning that it is a forbearance of enforcement of Tesla’s remedies against any party for claims of infringement for so long as such party is acting in good faith. In order for Tesla to preserve its ability to enforce the Tesla Patents against any party not acting in good faith, the Pledge is not a waiver of any patent claims (including claims for damages fo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          we already have agencies such as ISO and NEMA to do just that. Format wars stifle adoption. Its why Sony decided to strike a deal with the 3 studios backing HD-DVD. Once that happened, adoption really started to take off. When bluray first hit the shelves the blue LED was so expensive due to low yields among other issues. So a Bluray player was $1200 vs $500 for an HD-DVD. Sony managed to cut back on some royalty concerns for the hold-out studios like paramount and warner, while at the same time releasing t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        When sitting in a traffic jams with an electric car all that would be running is the AC. When stuck in a traffic jam with an internal combustion engine car you need to keep the engine running just to keep the AC running (for equal comparison assume no other devices are being used in either vehicle). There is a lot more wasted energy sitting in a traffic jam with an ICE car than there is with an EV car. I can't be bothered to figure out the math but I would bet that if an ICE car (with 1/4 tank of gas) and a

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Conservatives want gas guzzlers just to spite the "evil gubmint scientists".

  • My favorite movie-come-true is still Idiocracy....

  • Blocking sunlight would probably do more harm than good.

    Sunlight is needed for photosynthesis in plants and algae, which is how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gets absorbed and turned into solid or liquid form.

    What we need to do is to stop doing the reverse.

  • That is already in progress.

    The is already enough dead and abandoned junk that space travel is increasingly risk.

    And we are throwing more "internet satellites" up there that when we are able to head to another planet from trashing this one.

    My spiritual deity just sent a mental text picture of their face-palm.

    And hollywood again is projecting the future with the movie Idiocracy.

  • As opposed to placing reflectors on the ground will

    Lower crop yields

    Reduce the effectiveness of ground based telescopes that search for killer asteroids

    Make for absolutely beautiful sunsets!

  • Obviously they've never seen Highlander 2. Unfortunately, it still pains me to remember it myself.

  • Before you start hating on this idea, please check out this Kurzgesagt video entitled "Geoengineering: A Horrible Idea We Might Have to Do". https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Personally I think deliberate geoengineering (like what's proposed) isn't morally worse than the unintentional geoengineering we're already doing with our massive CO2 emissions. I think geoengineering could have some unintended consequences, which is exactly why studying our options makes sense.

    I also don't think that humanity is goin

  • A terrible fucking suggestion.

  • This seems extreme considering that there are perfectly good alternatives lie painting roofs white. If you were to paint all current rooftops white, the increase in albedo of the Earth's surface would counter all the the heating induced so far by human emissions. Plus, It's thoroughly reversible. But no! These Captain Planet villains go straight to blotting out the Sun or changing the composition of the atmosphere in unknown and uncontrollable ways.

    • haha, no, you make ridiculous assertion without a shred of proof. Painting roofs white would do nothing regarding global temperature.

      Real scientists advocating white roofs only claim urban heat island effect would be lessened and so there would be health benefit. There is no claim of modifying climate that way, to do that you'd be into crazy territory of modifying albedo of deserts and farmland (which they mention):

      https://e360.yale.edu/features... [yale.edu]

    • This is the US. It's about warfare. It always is.

      But you need the element of surprise. Which is what this "reason" is for.

  • Usually the geoengineering and silver bullet tech associated with these kinds of things is weak from many angles. I've only seen one that seems worthwhile: the meer reflection effort by Dr. Ye Tao. His presentations show how he addresses the usual weakness. He also directly faces the reason for the existence of so many weak geoengineering and silver bullet tech solutions ($).

  • Right. It reminds me of the local junior college that did a serious research project to determine whether ghosts are real. Yes, that really did happen, in NJ. Fortunately, that project did cost something less than $100M. Ok, less than $10M. Ok, less than $1M. Well, yeah, it didn't actually cost anything, but only because the idiots had no way to get funding.

  • The USA totally will give a crap about what their geoengineering will do to everyone else... Since they are such a selfless society. . . .

    We really need to break up that power monopoly, so they can't pull shit just because they got the biggest club in the cave.

  • Study all you want, as long as at the end you trash the findings and don't act on them. When are we going to realize that we really don't have a good grasp on climate and how everything is interconnected. There are probably many, many factors we haven't even thought about which interact together in regard to climate and everything that has been happening on Earth. If there's someone who is more dangerous than a "scientist", it's a scientist who thinks s/he is smart.

    Stop trying to fuck around and put that

  • At a time when we are beginning to understand the threat of microplastics in the air, earth and water?

    While studying this possibility, I hope that these scientists consider the nutritional value of these particles. This may also be an opportunity to coat them with a drug that will protect our lungs from various viruses, fungi and other pests. As long as we and all of nature will be absorbing these particles, they may as well offer some health benefits.

  • In a report it recommends funding of $100 million to $200 million over five years to better understand the feasibility of interventions to dim the sun, the risk of harmful unintended consequences and how such technology could be governed in an ethical way.

    I'll save you some cash; watch "Snowpiercer", either the film [wikipedia.org] or TV show [wikipedia.org] ...

  • Let's beam back to space, part of the incident radiation by the reflective coating of rooftops, parking lots, etc. It is cheap and fast and does not require expensive new technology. I did the math; it can be done: https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]

Slashdot Top Deals

I program, therefore I am.

Close