Absurd, expensive, last-minute, and avoids us having to change anything about our extractive abusive capitalist systems? I’d say it’s pretty much guaranteed we end up doing this, or something equally fucked-up.
Simpson’s did it first.
And Futurama.
And Highlander of all things.
Need that Dyson Sphere already
It’s a good thing that plants don’t need the sun or this would be a stupid idea.
Same for humans. Who needs that blinding orange fireball for anything. It’s so annoying making us warm, giving us free light and energy, and helping our bodies create Vitamin D.
Orange?! Mines white.
ORRRRR, or, or…just fucking stop companies and billionaires from being able to pollute the fuck out of everything like they have been.
Turning down the temperature a bit doesn’t fix the collapsing oceans, the water we can’t drink, the air we can’t breathe, or the microplastics causing infertility.
What it DOES do is give yet another corporation the ability to BLOCK THE FUCKING SUN.
You honestly think this won’t be used to “coerce” money out of governments around the fucking globe if they don’t play ball?
I wouldn’t be concerned about micro plastics and fertility. Latex, estrogen pills, and perpetually being online are having a far greater effect.
It wasn’t the machines that blacked out the sun it was the humans- the Matrix
Key points:
the company had developed a special reflective particle and the technology to release millions of tons of it high into the atmosphere. The intended effect: to dim the light of the sun across the world and throw global warming into reverse.
Humanity had gained the power to turn down the sun, and barely anyone on the planet even knew. What’s more, that untested power was now effectively for sale. In a world of rising chaos, sci-fi-pilled billionaires and nationalist leaders, a private company offering the means to control the world’s temperature — with almost no international laws regarding the deployment of such technology — was a disturbing prospect, thought Pasztor.
almost exactly a year after he published the report he was contracted to write and a few months after he ended his relationship with the company amicably, Pasztor was troubled. Apart from a link to his report on Stardust’s homepage, there was little public indication that they were taking his recommendations for transparency seriously. The company had not published a code of conduct it had agreed on with Pasztor and had told him it would release. The website itself was difficult to find while we were reporting this article; two cyber experts confirmed to us that it contained a line of code that hid it from search engines so that it could only be found using the link. (Yedvab said the coding that hid the website was unintentional and the company has since fixed it.) Some scientists in the geoengineering community were also complaining that Stardust remained secretive about the chemistry of its particle and its plans for releasing them.
The mechanics would be quite simple. Stardust envisages a fleet of around 100 planes — to begin with — flying into the stratosphere to deliver payloads of their particles, landing to reload, then immediately taking off again to repeat, continuously, every flight a tiny volcanic cough.
Oh! The MAGATs enable Chemtrails! 🤣
The Simpsons already did it
Why does no one remember that Highlander literally had a whole plot predicated on undoing it?
I’d argue the matrix did it as well
Futurama did it as well as a specific counter to Global Warming.
And the Animatrix, the backstory for how The Matrix ends up happening.
I thought they pushed the planet out further away from the sun for that one.
Frisky Dingo did that.
They’re shouting “Boo-urns.”
I really think we’d be better off just reducing GHG emissions as quickly as possible. I realize we’re not doing that, but that fact doesn’t necessarily make solar geoengineering (or solar radiation management, whatever you want to call it) a better idea. In fact, it might make it a worse idea. Geoengineering should only be done (if at all) in conjunction with rapid reductions in GHG emissions and carbon capture and sequestration. Doing geoengineering without GHG emissions reductions and carbon capture is at best a complete waste and at worst a total disaster.
Has nobody seen Snow Piercer? This does not end well.
So how does blocking the sun lower the CO2 levels? lol what a joke
no one claimed its lowering CO2 they are saying that it won’t matter because there will be less sunlight as its the sunglight that actually causes the global warming.
So it’s ok for the high CO2 levels to poison us, as long as we have shade? Thanks mega companies
Yes, implementing an insanely wasteful solution that affects one metric that sounds good while doing virtually nothing to solve the actual problem and actually causing several more, arguably worse problems (eg: plants need sunlight to live) is pretty much how everything works these days.
CO2 levels don’t actually poison us though. The problem isn’t CO2 levels per se, but the effect they have on global climate change, by trapping more heat. If less light gets through, then the planet cools, even if CO2 levels remain high. If temperatures stabilize or drop by 1.5C, then plants should eventually be able to remove the excess CO2, as long as we stop increasing our output. OTOH, the decreased amount of light getting through might make solar panels less efficient, and may reduce plant growth since they kinda need sunlight too. Sooooo…
High levels of CO2 are 100% toxic, why would you ever suggest otherwise?
Technically accurate, but not accurate in any meaningful way in this context.
The planet would be unlivable LONG before CO2 levels got high enough to directly risk the health and safety of humans through inhalation.
You know, I mistakenly conflate CO2 and particulate matter — I recognize my error.
We aren’t even halfway to the “this isn’t a great idea to live in” levels, and far from lethal levels. Purely from a “toxicity” level your bedroom at night is far worse than projected co2 levels in the next 100 years.
Does that mean it’s fine to keep increasing? No. But arguing that we are anywhere near “high levels” as it pertains to toxicity is inherently flawed.
You know, I mistakenly conflate CO2 and particulate matter — I recognize my error.
You mean an ozone layer?
