I don’t think human psychology will allow a united approach to global warming. Too man people are too stupid, to egoistic or just in such a tight spot they can not afford being “climate-friendly”.
So I wonder if there are Mega-Projects available to stop global warming?
Some coming to mind:
Reflector mirror at Lagrange1 between Sun and Earth - even a 1.000.000km² mirror from ultrathin film would weigh 1000 tonnes at most.
Giant Air Scrubers and I mean giant. They would dwarf the pyramids and remove pullutants and CO² from the athmosphere.
In addition I think a originator principle should become common: Any nation not really trying to act clean should simply be burdened with massive tariff measures. Using modern technology it shouldn’t be too hard to find nations who polute the ocean unnececerrally.
Edit, it became reality:
You must log in or # to comment.
Pie in the sky mega projects won’t save us.
Honestly even humouring the idea is frankly dangerous, the only thing it will do is let shitheels kick back and do nothing because it’ll totally be taken care of by X.
Reminds me of all the Liberals (right wingers) in my country pushing carbon capture technology as the solution and undoing all the work done by the Greens.
Yeah, I’m usually a quite tech positive person. But things like carbon capture, hydrogen and so on are so often pushed as the solution.
But they simply are not viable or economic for anything but niche cases.
The “high-tech solutions” were sustainable energy, banning mass animal farms, and regulating industrial pollution.
And even if we did come up with a big tech solution that works for now, literally every business would then think, “Nice, now we don’t have to care about our carbon footprint,” until even our tech can’t keep up anymore and we’re back at square one.
I think this is not the way.
It’s like with dental care. The solution is not to don’t care and think that someday technology will fix it. Instead you should brush regularly, don’t eat much sugar and visit the dentist now and then. It’s prevention.
We currently don’t have any technology that will save us and time is running out. Why bet on a tech wonder that needs to be mass ready in no time?
In my oppinion were are long beyond “brush your teeth.” - like the following (disgusting) picture shows: https://www.oralsurgeryofutah.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4985/2020/12/What-Health-Problems-Can-Result-in-Bad-Teeth.jpg?w=700
At that point you need to take drastic measurements. Because I tell you something: If you wait for all humans to become smart then you already have lost. If you though rely on some outstanding humans… that might work.
Instead of treating the symptoms we must address the cause. The cause is CO2 emissions. The solution is to reduce these emissions. Keep the oil in ground as much as possible—we still need some for lubricants, solvents, polymers etc but honestly, burning oil is stupid since it can be used in much better ways. Although we must also reduce the use of single-use plastics, volatile organic compounds and “forever chemicals” as much as possible since these pose real environmental and health risks, too.
We have the technology to address the emissions—photovoltaics, wind, hydro and, yes, nuclear power; everyone can reduce or even stop meat consumption if they want; every city and country can build good public transport and walkable communities; every government can regulate harmful chemicals. The problem is societal inertia, NIMBY-ism, FUD plus outright conspiracy delusions and unwillingness to change from the powers-taht-be.
I believe that the more tolerable climate predictions assume that not only will we cut emissions but that we will also find a way to remove significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
So you are both right.
You are right on human psychology. The big problem with these mega proje ts is who will pay for them? Furthermore, what could try would stifle theor own economy to penalize another?
Another scary possibility is large-scale geo-engineering done by desperate countries without consultation and agreement from their neighbors, much less the rest of the world.
Well, if the EU and the US would put the money together then it would be enough. 1000 tons of mirror would be less than 20% of the yearlyx US defence budget and less than 40% of the yearly EU regenerative energby budget.
Even if the US and EU pony up the not insignificant amount of cash to do it, there’s still nothing that can put 1000t into orbit, let alone L1. And splitting it up into 100t segments isn’t a solution, since L1 is unstable. The segments will need power, thrusters, gyros, propellant and guidance for station-keeping, so there goes a large chunk of your mass budget. To compensate for that, you need more mirrors. And they need to be continuously replaced as they break down or run out of propellant.
actually solar wind and electric charging of the rotating foil should do the trick. The gravitational effects around L1 are miniscule. If you are e.g. 1km away from L1 then it is less than 0,001% of earths gravity. The touch of a butterfly could literaly move the mirror.
And the gravitational pull of all the other planets. I’m sure Jupiter is totally cool with us trying to precisely align and balance a satellite swarm on the point of a needle.
You’re talking about geoengineering: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/geoengineering-gathering-momentum-heres-why-you-should-care
And yes, this is the only way we can solve climate change. Not because we can’t eventually stop emitting greenhouse gases, but rather it’s already too late for such solutions. Climate change is already here and we already past the point of trying to prevent it.
I wonder how much CO2 would be pumped into the atmosphere from creating a 1 million km^2 mirror? The electricity required just from manufacturing and researching and engineering alone would be immense, before considering CO2 from the labour, material production, putting it in the right place etc.
How much CO2 would be worth paying for how much gain this project would provide? I guess it would be less CO2 than giant air scrubbers would require for power at least.
How do you even maintain an ultra thin film mirror when space has high-speed space debris constantly flying around?
Surely it’s clear enough by now that adding fuel to fires doesn’t extinguish them. The amount of CO2 needed to build, let alone maintain, a mega-project is just going to be high envirinmental cost, low-certainty reward.
A quick short term implementable solution is to tax companies for carbon footprint. Proper tax, not “oh sorry we have no cash we spent it all on global domination… I mean… operating expenses.” sort of tax. The kind of tax which makes businesses pause production like they paused production during peak Covid and made an appreciable difference.
There are a few YouTube videos out there where science communicators (one of them is Kyle Hill) do a few basic calculations on these projects and conclude that it’s impossible.
For example, the mirrors would need to be a swarm of satellites that are launched by hundreds of rockets every day for decades with no pauses.
actually I know that video and it was BS. HE was talking about a MASSIVE mirror. That one would reflect like 90% of incoming light. I am talking about a non-stabilized foil reflecting about 30-60% of incoming light. That is a lot easier to do and weights less than 2% of a full mirror. It would take 50 Ariana6 launches for the whole thing.
I can comment on air scrubbers.
You don’t need those to be massive. In fact, a diminishing returns effects kicks in at about the size of a large building. You just need a lot of those. Preferably several in every somewhat large city, plus some more on the periphery.
But the current problem with this tech is it’s really energy intensive. So much so, that if you run it using fossil fuels, you’re scrubbing less CO2 than you release, and if you run it using renewable energy, you’re taking it away from other uses, and still end up with net positive CO2.
So the only reasonable way to do it at this stage is to run it using unexportable surplus clean energy, which none of the countries have at this point.
You might want to look up the law of unintended consequences.
The bigger the intervention, the bigger the potential unintended consequence.
By far the easiest solution to climate change is not emitting greenhouse gasses in the first place. It is still a monumental challenge but if we don’t do that, we’re just treating the symptoms not the cause
By far the easiest solution to climate change is not emitting greenhouse gasses in the first place.
Except that has already failed. We already have sent enough CO₂ into the atmosphere that global warming is already here. You can no longer solve the problem by just stopping greenhouse gas emissions. All serious solutions now involve some form of geoengineering. Either block out the sun or pull CO₂ out of the air, those are the only possible options.
Some of us witnessed just how amazingly elastic our ecosystems can be just by the improvement in indicators like air quality due to reductions in human activity during covid. Human impact, while catastrophic, can revert amazingly quickly with radical behavioral change. Just something I try to keep in mind. I agree, that is the best path.
Aside of changing abiotic factors we’re rapidly losing biodiversity. Not only species but genetic variation in populations. If a species has little genetic variety it has less capacity to survive extreme events as a whole. I wanted to point that out just in case someone comes to the conclusion that you can just bounce back all willy nilly from a shrunken population.
With Mega-Projects, there will be even more procrastination over who is going to pay for the project.
Also, have you heard of the Jevons paradox.
Reading through these comments is depressing and my only hope is that I will be dead before the droughts lead to food shortages that effect me. I like eating, I like eating good food, I like having good food available when I want it. I don’t like being hungry. I hope I’m dead before I have to deal with starvation. At least nuclear war would be quick.
Megaprojects are a pipe dream. We can’t even deal with a lowball pandemic together as a nation. What hope do we have of coming together as a world? Let alone for something that isn’t going to have immediate consequences slapping us in the face. We’re a pathetic society that can’t do anything good. All we do is consume. Mr. Smith was right, we’re a virus.
We’re heading for a post-apocalyptic sci-fi future, and all the horrible shit that goes along with it.
In a fucked up way, our only hope is if a mega power somehow dominates the world through some horrific war and consolidates power, while somehow avoiding nuclear war and then does a quick 180° straight into eco-fascism. That’s the glorious future we have to look forward to. Life under a global authoritarian regime with severe austerity measures to deal with global warming. People will starve, people will be executed. The horrors of Stalinism will be our reality, and it is the only thing that can save us from ourselves.
I fucking hope I die, because I wasn’t built for suffering.
We can’t even deal with a lowball pandemic together as a nation.
My nation got pretty well behind the pandemic procedures and we had an vaccine like six months after the outbreak.
Oh, btw, I think a Mega-Project would be a much more feasable approach to the problem than Eco-Stalinism.
Sadly the only mega project that might save us is getting rid of unchained capitalism
I have read about potentially releasing reflective particles into the atmosphere. Should be a lot easier and cheaper than building some huge mirror. The problem is, we don’t know what side effects it could cause down the line.
