Thanks for watching! This is the last of 5 videos on current innovations experts and researchers are exploring to help save our planet. We covered topics like pulling carbon out of the air, clean energy’s storage problem, and getting concrete production to net-zero. You can watch all the videos, and more of our coverage on climate change, in our playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLJ8cMiYb3G5dR1opfCsg8JmZSToyAWR5h.html
Nice video Vox great to cover the topic - In the video you said that to do geoengineering we would need "unprecedented global cooperation" - What worries me though is what happens if China, Iran, North Korea or whoever just decided on lowering global temperatures by 3 degrees lets say - then what happens? How do we react to that? especially if global emissions targets are not reached?
It's so refreshing to see people debate from a space of agreed facts, and respect for their opponents knowledge and view. We need more of this in the world!
There’s so many good ideas about geoengineering beyond just solar radiation management too. Ocean alkalinity enhancement could undo climate change and ocean acidification at the same time. I feel like we will need a few good geoengineering ideas in tandem with decarbonization for a realistic way out of this.
I don't see why are they so concerned about the future of the human race. We're the worst species that inhabited this planet with all the crimes against humanity. We don't deserve to survive any apocalyptic event.
Yes, this is the same reason some environmental activists oppose carbon sequestration. Stopping and reversing climate change is not the primary goal; it is environmentalism for the sake of social progress. This is also why many people who think climate change is a serious issue also campaign to shut down nuclear reactors in working condition (to be replaced by natural gas or even coal). Or why people who think housing is unaffordable for low-income individuals will oppose new market-rate housing.
Counter argument: we don't wanna be scrambling to have access to this tech when something like a massive volcanic eruption or disaster starts heating up the Earth rapidly
Wouldn’t doing all that massively impact the world’s agricultural production? What if our crops don’t accumulate and then worst case scenario there is way less food for our ever growing population?
The upside is the food's nutritional value would increase because they found reducing the carbon dioxide in an environment and then closing the food leads to smaller food but it is a lot more nutritionally dense
@@LutraLovegood I was thinking more wheat production for flour that we consume. But yes corn and stuff for animal feed is probably taking up a lot more space than fields for human consumption
In an ideal world Solar geoengineering could be the quick fix to lowering the average global temperature and reversing the climate crisis but this would require us to keep on the path of decarbonisation. However knowing the laziness of man we would probably stop decarbonisation efforts after solar geoengineering temporarily brings down the global average temperature...
Greed and short term gain by the few is the driver. Not laziness, it doesn't matter if we make the planet uninhabitable tomorrow as long as the rich get richer today. Why do you think they are investing in space travel? They are going to get what they can then leave.
It does depend. gen z is clearly the most environment conscious generation ever. Boomers quite possibly the least, even now after they've been told a thousand times. Anyway. The evidence is that people once they hear about that solar geoengineering is being considered by governments all over the world then they become MORE environment conscious not less and think we need to do more to cut co2 and all the rest of it not less. No sensible person thinks solar geoengineering is a silver bullet.
@@lbr88x30 Leave to where? None of them will survive the 40000 year journey to the nearest star system, and I sure hope they don't plan on settling somewhere else in the solar system (temperature, radiation, toxic soils, etc).
Solar geoengineering is the same as carbon capture. It tries to give a technological solution to climate change so we can continue our current economic activities uninterrupted. I'm happy you interviewed professionals who are skeptical and critical about these technologies and researches.
Well, as said in this video, after we are done with decarbonising, the warming will continue. So sooner or later we will need to figure out how to reduce the Amount of Carbon in the Athmosphere to get back to pre industrial levels. I think researching Technologies like Carboncapture hence is justified. Especially since there are some Emissions considered unavoidable, which we will need to offset.
That isn't true. If we stop all emissions tomorrow we are still in for increasing temperatures. It is a problem that will not be solved by even the complete elimination of carbon emissions. It requires another solution.
It is a more temporary solution than carbon capture but it also is a lot less resource intensive. It is an undoubtable fact that some countries or rogue scientists (if the tech gets banned) will use this technology in the future, there is little argument to halt research. It is going to happen sooner or later we should understand it to the best of our ability before that happens on a large scale. How can we mitigate issues that arise from it if these issues are unforseen until being used in the real world? We can't.
I think this is even riskier than Carbon Capture. Carbon that is capture won't be released assuming it isn't used for reckless things like Enhanced oil recovery or carbonating beverages. So you're still able to get temperatures back to pre industrial levels without them immediately shooting back up again once you stop. What's even worse is burning fossil fuels also releases aerosols, so in essence we are already doing solar geoengineering unintentionally.
"...shot past the atmosphere and into the stratosphere." The stratosphere is one layer of the atmosphere. The ash passed through the TROPOsphere and into the stratosphere.
Once large scale disasters start kicking in, this discussion will be over, everyone will be asking how soon can we do this, instead of should we do it..
This is just kicking the can down the road. We should consider it as a last resort, but plan A, B and C should primarily focus on reducing overall consumption and particularly our reliance on fossil fuels.
we should accept the responsibility that human now manage the planet at global scale. We should adopt geoengineering and create an organisation at the scale of WHO & UN that manage the planet's temperature. We should never go back to the days we don't have to worry about the planet's energy budget.
I think we need to admit that people are not going to stop using fossil fuels anytime soon and we do need to mitigate that fact. Yes, try to reduce fossil fuels.
As is stated in the video, even if we were to stop carbon emissions tomorrow, the lasting impact of the last two centuries' worth of pollutants in the atmosphere is going to be felt for centuries to come and continue to warm the planet. There isn't an easy answer here, but yeah cutting down on use of fossil fuels is the logical first step.
5:03 The Sami Council is not Sweden. It is a voluntary, non-governmental organization of the Sámi people within Sweden. It is not affiliated with the Swedish government directly and has no political power as far as I know.
@@networkpiyush7 yes, "chemtrails" or stratospheric aerosol injections are considered a conspiracy theory even though it's clearly happening with so much proof to it. If it wasn't happening, states wouldn't be making it illegal (Tennesee, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and a few more).
@@notinterested7911 like the vid said, fossil fuel companies will just use that as an excuse. If we dont do anything, theres more chance of us getting to net 0
@elfrjzit is really not, even if we were to reduce our impact on the climate to the maximum possible amount by stopping all the emissions today we would still have an enormous amount of heating that would take hundreds if not thousands of years to slowly lessen and then reverse. That amount of heating and staying at that higher temperature will cause irreversible damage to our ecosystems like making many species go extinct and even changing how the ocean distributes heat all over the globe. Geoengenieeng is one of the few ways that we could mitigate a lot of the worst case scenarios and will likely be one of the options that nations will almost certainly try to implement in the future. It's better to have the research of how it would affect the climate and our natural systems before we make a decision since we already know that we can do it and how we would do so. In the end a combination of geoengineering and carbon capture could help the climate return to normal and have it be stable at that level. To avoid companies from using it as a way to avoid decarbonization we could still have the carbon taxes and emissions limits that we are implementing today to pay for these massive projects. It isn't a perfect solution in any sense of the word but we don't have many other alternatives and every option should be explored in detail to make sure we know what we are doing before we do it.
thats good news - countries prefer spending money on useful investments and not some imaginary "problems" created by green globalists that will affect people in 500 years
Who’s suffering? Humanity isn’t until they cool us. Key word’s: could cool David Keith is suffering and spreading it around. Wouldn’t all the money be better spent feeding the poor?
The sun shades and mirrors in space one is the best option among them. Unlike releasing particles in the air, it doesn't add anything to the atmosphere and if the calculations are correct and deployment is with care, the reduced light (or maybe just the IR waves) and the increased CO2 will counter each other. Also it's sustainable as mirrors in space won't need even nearly as much continued renewal as the aerosol option.
have you seen the space around our planet? you would need almost all the resources on earth just to clear it out for that to be an option. and it would cause disastrous problems if deployed. people want to try everything except eliminating what caused the issue in the first place - tiny groups of people controlling all the worlds resources and inflating their egos to the point that they see themselves as gods...
I don't know but kepler effect probably could be a risk here and I don't think we have technology to effectively clean-up the space junk to reduce such risk.
@@nadaramadhan3377 I think you're talking about the Kessler syndrome. For starters it's better to put these shades and mirrors in higher orbits since if we put them in low Earth orbit we would need A LOT of them and their orbits would decay very rapidly, also the higher you go the less the space junk. The best option is to put them in the Earth-Sun L1 point. There is almost no space junk there and the mirrors can stay in that region between Earth and the Sun. Also the mirrors won't need much material. They can be very thin. Some may say we can't do it now but I disagree, all the tech is available, it's just a big task like building the Pyramids was for our ancestors.
Has nobody seen "The Second Renaissance"? The solution is to not spew carbon into the atmosphere and to heavily expand and subsidize clean energy solutions like thorium reactors and solar. The last thing we want is to effect plant growth on this planet which would be far more impactful than warming.
This. These people seem to be forgetting that food is going to be affected by less sun. And we’re already at a crisis point when it comes to food supplies and production.
We aren't growing plants around the poles where ice used to reflect sun back to space. I would be very surprised if they're suggesting adding chemicals over population centres or farmland ...
@@BravoCheesecake It's not as simple as that. If we introduce them at the pole, that is where the majority of light will be reflected. Any particulate that spreads will be so diluted that you would be looking at
That's not true, they are currently spraying, and have been since at least 2015, we have been looking up, and tracking the patterns in the sky, for the last 3 years.
The countries most affected by climate change currently are the ones least able to fight it. But once countries who can afford to research and deploy solar geoengineering start feeling the serious effects of global warming, the temptation might be too much to resist. This debate reminds me a bit of the current debate over Artificial Intelligence. Some want to ban further development of AI, and others want to continue to develop it. But the fact is, development is going to happen no matter what. So the best we can do is figure out how to monitor and regulate it.
@@heww3960It's not only a monetary cost. Some countries simply do not have the material or knowledge ressources to develop such huge projects. You could compare a city around a castle in the Middle Ages, and another one during the industrial revolution. Both could be considered wealthy enough for their own population, but you will not ask the first one to make and operate a train, because there is this technological gap between them.
@@novaIia As I said, it is cheap very cheap, for any country, even the poorest. Plus this do not really even have to be a additional cost, since you can have it on the regular transport ship etc.
Lets go for the expensive, risky, dramatic solution. Let's not legislate for fuel efficient vehicles, mass transport, battery technology and other required energy solutions. At best something like this is a partial solution. Reality is that very little has been done to reduce emissions and the US has been a huge driver in this. As long as the rich get richer today who cares? Why do you think they are investing in space travel technology? They clearly don't plan to reap what they have sown. They plan to take what they can get and leave.
batteries will not get us to a carbon negative future. neither will "fuel efficient vehicles." we need to either fundamentally alter how we interact with energy and transportation or face the consequences. at best, this buys us time. many cities, especially in the US, need to be demolished. sodium batteries might be able to be mass manufactured for grid storage, but we need much more space efficient solutions than that. nuclear power is a must. international supergrids are a must. continental scale transit solutions are a must. we cannot keep living how we are now.
Just so you remember - the issue here is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has led to more of the suns light staying within the earth as opposed to being reflected out. Because of all of this CO2, each moment in 2023, a much larger percentage of the suns energy stays on earth as opposed to 200 years ago. In order to reverse the net increase in global temperature, the percentage of the sun’s energy that stays on earth must be reduced, and at least for some period of time, must be net negative. Even with thorough carbon capture, we will still need to reduce the amount of energy that reaches the earth in order to achieve our prior climate. So some kind of technology is needed, whether it be a solar shield or aerosols or whatever. It will be the final part in reversing climate change if we choose that route
Global dimming has instead been attributed to an increase in atmospheric particulate matter, predominantly sulfate aerosols, as the result of rapidly growing air pollution due to post-war industrialization.
We've put off reducing our emissions for so long that I don't see how we'll get out of this crisis without adding something drastic like solar geo engineering. I think we need to keep looking into this as a way to help reverse the damage we've done while we reset our energy and consumption.
There is no climate 'crisis'. Doomsayers and fearmongers have been peddling this for decades now and it always turns out to be bunk. Climate is an ever changing thing. The planet is still coming out of the last ice age. The sun's solar weather affects climate more than anything we do. A single volcanic eruption can expel more carbon into the atmosphere than all of human history.
The show "Extrapolations" on Apple TV+ touches on this. It definitely worries me that some day we may see someone who's misinformed use this incorrectly, and it'll have devastating effects.
Always speculated on the end Dane, I think it is coming sooner than later...they chip away at us in pieces...here and there, when will the masses scream "NO MORE" will it be to little to late...I have followed you fron the beginning, your words never failed to move me...your truth has never faltered...your stance has never wavered I can only offer to you is my profound loyalty, and will stand beside you as an un- removable rock, most sincerely, yours Joyce...🙏
If we do it could mean that bright sunny days will be of the past. Less sunlight would also drastically effect agriculture which is already having problems due to climate change. In the end isn’t just better to reduce carbon emissions.
Reducing carbon emission is to late for, it only cause more harm than good. The carbon stays up forever basically and it has a delay effect on 10-40 yrs, so even if we get net zero today, it would still continue getting worse, and then you have feedbacks lops that could take over. It is simple to late for reducing our emission. That is not the solution, that would just make it worse.
humanity actually did emit aerosols and it cooled the planet when coal with sulfur was burned for decades. having an alternative that somehow creates energy and a layer of cloud when burned but does not cause acid rain would be a solution for the termination shock problem too.
The thing about these kinds of solutions is that they can very likely become a crisis creator themselves. We ought not to use such solutions as preventative measures when so many other rational and less dire options exist.
@@LuckyW23 As someone that works outside all day, It seemed very obvious this was heavily happening in upstate NY between 2010-2017. Moving back after 3 years elsewhere, its no where near as obvious, leading me to wonder if the negatives were already known.
@@brandonpaul3985 I find it disgusting that this is now being pitched as a solution when it’s already long underway and is cause of visible climate change. Not to mention the negative environmental effects. The solution is to stop geo engineering
Who would ignore the main cause? The people benefiting from co2 release are already being made to reduce by mass opinion not because they want to. That opinion is not going to change.
Weather and atmospheric conditions arise from chaos theory to develop. It seems the height of hubris to say we understand that system well enough that we can deploy particulates without having unintended consequences.
Well it's the height of hubris to think we can put what amounts to so far 30 cubic miles worth of co2 into the atmosphere without there being side effects. The future is dangerous that's already been decided for us. What we do now is decide which is the lesser danger. Personally I think some solar geoengineering as well as all the other stuff we have to do is a good idea going by everything we know so far about it. Listen to some talks by David Keith, Pete Irvine, stewart Patrick, Jesse Reynolds and wake smith. They lay it out how this could work.
Nobody is saying go full out right away, but if you don’t make small scale peojects to test the idea then you’re obviously never going to know if it would work as intended
@@notinterested7911 but the video said that it would take full cooperation of all of the worlds governments to be effective. It seems like you would need to implement a highly aggressive strategy to have any effect on global temperature
The calculations for the potential impact on solar influenced winds and the spin of the earth should be a headline on every article? Where is the science? Alterations of water flow and massive dams such as China combined with boring, massive solar absorption by panels and construction are changing wind patterns and spin of earth?. Massive wind pattern disruption by skyscrapers and heat pattern of megalopolis concentrations might be affecting the spin of the earth? Have all the lay thinkers and true scientist been driven from the process? Lay questions here only.
Another important reason not to pursue solar geoengineering is that while it can potentially mitigate the risks of heating it cannot prevent ocean acidification and the potential breakdown of marine food chains. Also, as mentioned in the video, solar geoengineering is a powerful disincentive to decarbonization. David Keith at 2:20 saying "we must cut emissions in the long run" sounds dangerous to me, since most climate scientists would agree that emissions must be cut in the short term, urgently.
@@bananian Unfortunately no public transport where I need to go regularly, but I am in the fortunate situation that I can walk to work most of the time, which I do. I use an EV if a car is absolutely necessary, again mostly because I was lucky enough to be able to afford one and I know that production does cause significant emissions, which is why public transport would be a preferable option if possible. Vegetarian, not vegan. In any event, while personal action is important, concerted political action is absolutely required to solve this crisis, and pretending that we have a solution like solar geoengineering while ignoring its massive flaws and, worse, using it as an excuse to go on as before is not a feasible option any more -- assuming we want to mitigate massive damage due to global warming.
@@Azure-Witcher in spain they have paint homes for years white to cool them down in the sub. Ok they have red roofs, but we could come up with hydrostatic keep clean white paint that would do the job even in llqces like the uk, goves just have to want to and stop taking 2nd jobs...
That is why traditional Greek architecture is white. It keeps you house cool. But since roofs are practically ground level from an atmospheric perspective at that point most heat has already penetrated the air and will be send back in the same low layers of air having negligible impact.
@elfrjz most roofs are also white, pretty sure that's just stylistic at first. But during the military dictatorship the white and blue coloring actually was mandatory to promote nationalism. The white limestone wash also functioned as disinfectant to stop the spread of Cholera which was an issue at the time and another reason to mandate it. So protection against the heat wasn't the only reason but one of multiple
@@Azure-Witcher it's been already looked into. Painting every roof white can help for localised cooling particularly in cities. But it just isn't enough for the whole world
This is a good debate. I think we shouldn't restrict research; more knowledge would be helpful, if only to know what not to do, especially since this is an issue there's currently very little certainty about. The insights gained from studying the feasibility concerns and risks to the natural environment might be useful beyond just this one idea. I think the arguments for restrictions on actually making this technology are more convincing.
It’s good that we’re not charging into this recklessly and it’s good that we’re starting to do research so that in the future if we ever really need it, we can deploy it safely.
Guys, the IPCC literally drew-up a roadmap we can follow to get through this mess - stuff like Solar Frickin Shades can only honestly be looked-at as a shiny distraction to pursue business-as-normal for as long as possible 🙄
Why? If global warming is now inevitably taking us above target, it seems perfectly sensible to use solar engineering to bring us back below while the transition to lower emissions is completed. No point being ideological about it.
Loving these short, informative videos; however - is there a specific reason a lot of the animations/graphics are at a very low framerate compared to the rest of the video? This can sometimes create a bit of an eye strain. It would be amazing if this could be improved!
It's super complicated, but in one sense it's also super simple. If energy in is greater than energy out, Earth warms up. Solar shields seem like the way to go, then. Long duration reductions on solar energy reaching earth tip the balance of the equation without adding new aerosols to the atmosphere. I've only got a bachelor's in the field, so I'll defer to the experts, lest I find myself atop Mt Dunning-Krueger.
They already do this in Melbourne Australia according to some people it since the covid lock downs. People see hundreds of large drone planes fly in to the clouds and come down for re-filling of the chemicals.weekly. If you check the Melbourne weather history for the last 3 years almost everyday Saturday, it's either dark, cloudy or rainy and extra cold. So they can plan hich days to rain and which days to be sunny. In this case working days are Sunny and party days are dark. So in Melbourne, the party days are long over.
If things are difficult to reverse, then shouldn't we be deploying this technology at a small scale, better understand potential consequences before someone uses it on a massive scale? There is no if we use this technology but when, how much we understand it and to what degree we use it.
@@misty6348 it's partly because with almost anything, you can fix all the problems that you do know. But it is only when it is implemented on a large scale that problems, which you may have never predicted, appear. I don't think messing with the fundamental nature of our ecosystem is even remotely sensible. We can't predict everything and we certainly can't fix everything. That is ever more relevant to a project such as this, there are simply too many variables and factors for it to ever be safe in my opinion.
What chemicals or nano particles will they be spraying because that’s what we’ll be breathing . Plants and trees will take these chemicals up into their system. I think co2 would be a less of a problem. Greenhouses usually crank up their co2 to 800 to 1200 ppm. Plant more trees, lighten up the colors of roads and rooftops
The issue here is we have to commit to this, while also still pushing to reduce emissions. As such this is really a full on last possible option that should be utilized. Because once we deploy this technology, we'll have to maintain it not for a few months, but likely years, decades, or even generations. Plus, I haven't seen any audited studies that even discuss the effects on plant life for an extended stretch of time.
This is not some big project, so maintain it would be easy, only if the whole society collapse for some other reason, then it would be hard to maintainn. Studie? Well we have done this unintentionally since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and no big issues.
While there isn't anything we can do to course-correct our collective past, I am glad that humanity is using foresight to better scrutinize the decisions that impact our collective future.
What if we combine all the methods like reflecting the sun rays , decarbonization , going green. We could stimulate a large number of minor volcanic eruptions (idk if thats possible) and cause a drop in the temperature as much as we can.
Well the Idea to cover sky with clouds to stop sun rays isn't new and this hypothesis was discussed in one very popular film in 1999 and we all well know that this approach was a bad idea, at least to fight machines, but something tells that to fight global warming in a same way will lead to the same result.
*I think it's necessary to think in other ways to help solve the problem we put ourselves in, but I don't think we should expedite technologies when we know already, they're gonna get us complacent*
I've encountered many articles about solar energy mitigation, but they never include a discussion of how severely this might affect crop yields or photovoltaic electricity production. On the cost/benefit list, are they that minor a concern?
Seems like a bad idea given humanity's track record with actions to override nature. Especially today with EVs growing exponentially and wind/solar + batteries now being the cheapest LCOE of any energy source, it is now not just the right thing to do to head towards carbon neutrality, but the economically logical one in many areas. I think the next few years will be the peak of global CO2 emissions before they start dropping considerably over the next 1-2 decades.
Something to note is we have done it before. We pumped cfc’s into the atmosphere as a by product for many products. This is the leading theory as to why global temperatures dropped from 1940-1970 despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. However this is what also caused the Ozone hole to form. We’ve since mostly stopped cfc emissions but it is a real world example of its use but also the major negative consequences that we don’t fully understand.
Great work and a fascinating question regarding a complex issue. I’m not sure if there is a correct answer with solar geoengineering but one thing is for sure: we must do something drastic to slow down and stop climate change.
I think the most interesting proposal is a solar array in outer space. It would be very expensive but could provide earth with huge amounts of clean energy and lower the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere. It would likely have less negative consequences and the technology already exists. It’s simply a matter of economics, engineering and wether we want thousands of solar panels in orbit.
Solar energy in space would be most effective in a high geostationary orbit. Then the solar panels are in sunlight 99% of the time, they see so much of the earth they can always beam their energy to a receiver (they are so high they could even choose to aim at different continents, to whichever needs the power the most). And they do not have to quickly aim at different angles. But when they are in this high orbit they basically never cast their shadow on earth, so they wouldn't cause cooling. And they are sending energy to earth, so that causes heating in the end too. You can either have the satellites low, they cast a shadow on earth and they'll be in earth's shadow a lot too. Or you can have them high, where they are not casting shadow on earth and they'll be in constant sunlight.
I've thought of this before, just holding out with naïve* hope that A.I or engineered clouding of atmosphere or an analogous procedure to actually REVERSE warming. It'd be such a powerful humanity lesson that we'd overcome our vices, collective social pressures keeping us in morbid stagnation towards the abyss, and instead control the overall climate intentionally for the first time for the BETTER!
Generally humans move up with tech and not behind. Heck it was just about 100 years ago when they said the world would be starved to death. Gut we got GMO corn, rice, etc.... we have dozens and dozens of examples of people pushing us forward and not holding us back!
No we should plant & protect trees, achieve net zero, and stop paving the ground with black pavement and paint the existing ones white. Also plants and animals need sunlight
![แข่งเพิ่มน้ำหนักใน 24 ชั่วโมง!! [Ver 2025]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/20xn0g6k-ec/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching! This is the last of 5 videos on current innovations experts and researchers are exploring to help save our planet. We covered topics like pulling carbon out of the air, clean energy’s storage problem, and getting concrete production to net-zero.
You can watch all the videos, and more of our coverage on climate change, in our playlist:
th-cam.com/play/PLJ8cMiYb3G5dR1opfCsg8JmZSToyAWR5h.html
Yeah, what could go wrong
anything but to stop growing and question capitalism. Appalling
Imagine, only treating the symptoms, not the CAUSE. Such a Pharma type response. 😒
I wish that I could stop receiving this delusional material in my feed.
Nice video Vox great to cover the topic - In the video you said that to do geoengineering we would need "unprecedented global cooperation" - What worries me though is what happens if China, Iran, North Korea or whoever just decided on lowering global temperatures by 3 degrees lets say - then what happens? How do we react to that? especially if global emissions targets are not reached?
It's so refreshing to see people debate from a space of agreed facts, and respect for their opponents knowledge and view. We need more of this in the world!
I think proper education and scientific decorum are a big part of that.
There is no debate; doing this is the dumbest thing ever. If anyone advocates for this, they are a nm*r*n
There’s so many good ideas about geoengineering beyond just solar radiation management too. Ocean alkalinity enhancement could undo climate change and ocean acidification at the same time. I feel like we will need a few good geoengineering ideas in tandem with decarbonization for a realistic way out of this.
@@PlanetZeroVideos are they not planting coral too? Theres so many ideas out there. Just a matter of funding them now
I don't see why are they so concerned about the future of the human race. We're the worst species that inhabited this planet with all the crimes against humanity. We don't deserve to survive any apocalyptic event.
a big problem is that this could easily be used as an excuse even if it works not to address the socetial issues that lead to this crsis to begin with
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
so you are against it for that reason!
Yes, this is the same reason some environmental activists oppose carbon sequestration. Stopping and reversing climate change is not the primary goal; it is environmentalism for the sake of social progress. This is also why many people who think climate change is a serious issue also campaign to shut down nuclear reactors in working condition (to be replaced by natural gas or even coal). Or why people who think housing is unaffordable for low-income individuals will oppose new market-rate housing.
Counter argument: we don't wanna be scrambling to have access to this tech when something like a massive volcanic eruption or disaster starts heating up the Earth rapidly
Thats the whole point, not some accidental thing. Thats capitalism and its the root problem that leads to all these societal issues.
Wouldn’t doing all that massively impact the world’s agricultural production? What if our crops don’t accumulate and then worst case scenario there is way less food for our ever growing population?
There are always alternatives to direct sun exposure like sun lamps/lights
We could just stop eating meat. Bonus point we would be able to reforest a lot of land while also decimating our pollution.
The upside is the food's nutritional value would increase because they found reducing the carbon dioxide in an environment and then closing the food leads to smaller food but it is a lot more nutritionally dense
@@LutraLovegood I was thinking more wheat production for flour that we consume. But yes corn and stuff for animal feed is probably taking up a lot more space than fields for human consumption
@@NadeemAhmed-nv2br thank you very much ! I did not know this. I was looking for a genuine answer thank you for giving me that :)
In an ideal world Solar geoengineering could be the quick fix to lowering the average global temperature and reversing the climate crisis but this would require us to keep on the path of decarbonisation. However knowing the laziness of man we would probably stop decarbonisation efforts after solar geoengineering temporarily brings down the global average temperature...
Greed and short term gain by the few is the driver. Not laziness, it doesn't matter if we make the planet uninhabitable tomorrow as long as the rich get richer today. Why do you think they are investing in space travel? They are going to get what they can then leave.
It does depend. gen z is clearly the most environment conscious generation ever. Boomers quite possibly the least, even now after they've been told a thousand times. Anyway. The evidence is that people once they hear about that solar geoengineering is being considered by governments all over the world then they become MORE environment conscious not less and think we need to do more to cut co2 and all the rest of it not less. No sensible person thinks solar geoengineering is a silver bullet.
Yes it could buy us time to reduce carbon and capture it if possible…
@@lbr88x30 the space travel thing won't work out for them believe me. We can't even get humans to Mars let alone colonize space.
@@lbr88x30 Leave to where? None of them will survive the 40000 year journey to the nearest star system, and I sure hope they don't plan on settling somewhere else in the solar system (temperature, radiation, toxic soils, etc).
Solar geoengineering is the same as carbon capture. It tries to give a technological solution to climate change so we can continue our current economic activities uninterrupted. I'm happy you interviewed professionals who are skeptical and critical about these technologies and researches.
Well, as said in this video, after we are done with decarbonising, the warming will continue. So sooner or later we will need to figure out how to reduce the Amount of Carbon in the Athmosphere to get back to pre industrial levels.
I think researching Technologies like Carboncapture hence is justified. Especially since there are some Emissions considered unavoidable, which we will need to offset.
@@I-Maser yes indeed. Research on it's own as said in the video is definitely needed.
That isn't true. If we stop all emissions tomorrow we are still in for increasing temperatures. It is a problem that will not be solved by even the complete elimination of carbon emissions. It requires another solution.
It is a more temporary solution than carbon capture but it also is a lot less resource intensive. It is an undoubtable fact that some countries or rogue scientists (if the tech gets banned) will use this technology in the future, there is little argument to halt research. It is going to happen sooner or later we should understand it to the best of our ability before that happens on a large scale. How can we mitigate issues that arise from it if these issues are unforseen until being used in the real world? We can't.
I think this is even riskier than Carbon Capture. Carbon that is capture won't be released assuming it isn't used for reckless things like Enhanced oil recovery or carbonating beverages. So you're still able to get temperatures back to pre industrial levels without them immediately shooting back up again once you stop. What's even worse is burning fossil fuels also releases aerosols, so in essence we are already doing solar geoengineering unintentionally.
What a well documented discussion. Thank you Vox!
I read 'delusion'. Now I'm sad its not actually there.
What a horribly "documented" discussion. It's full of cherry-picked interviews to get the result Vox is looking for.
@@PCr4zy what is not there
@@roger5857 'delusion'. I read '... well documented delusion.'; which it is.
they didnt go into the environmental problems it could cause they just said it might
"...shot past the atmosphere and into the stratosphere."
The stratosphere is one layer of the atmosphere. The ash passed through the TROPOsphere and into the stratosphere.
Once large scale disasters start kicking in, this discussion will be over, everyone will be asking how soon can we do this, instead of should we do it..
This is just kicking the can down the road. We should consider it as a last resort, but plan A, B and C should primarily focus on reducing overall consumption and particularly our reliance on fossil fuels.
we should accept the responsibility that human now manage the planet at global scale. We should adopt geoengineering and create an organisation at the scale of WHO & UN that manage the planet's temperature. We should never go back to the days we don't have to worry about the planet's energy budget.
We're already pretty close to last resort territory.
I think we need to admit that people are not going to stop using fossil fuels anytime soon and we do need to mitigate that fact. Yes, try to reduce fossil fuels.
As is stated in the video, even if we were to stop carbon emissions tomorrow, the lasting impact of the last two centuries' worth of pollutants in the atmosphere is going to be felt for centuries to come and continue to warm the planet. There isn't an easy answer here, but yeah cutting down on use of fossil fuels is the logical first step.
This is just taking the easy way out.
5:03 The Sami Council is not Sweden. It is a voluntary, non-governmental organization of the Sámi people within Sweden. It is not affiliated with the Swedish government directly and has no political power as far as I know.
She mentioned "indigenous groups" as well as governments and researchers.
It is already happening but we arent allowed to talk about it
Really?
@@networkpiyush7 yes, "chemtrails" or stratospheric aerosol injections are considered a conspiracy theory even though it's clearly happening with so much proof to it. If it wasn't happening, states wouldn't be making it illegal (Tennesee, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and a few more).
Yes try and cool the earth while not fixing any of the problem's that got us here. It will be polluted and cold, great.
Sooo the world becomes a giant Russia? 🤣
Who said anything about stoping efforts to reduce co2 emissions, just waiting and letting things get worse is obviously not a solution
@@notinterested7911 like the vid said, fossil fuel companies will just use that as an excuse. If we dont do anything, theres more chance of us getting to net 0
@elfrjz yes, we need to reduce earths population by eliminating the weak, sick, old.
@elfrjzit is really not, even if we were to reduce our impact on the climate to the maximum possible amount by stopping all the emissions today we would still have an enormous amount of heating that would take hundreds if not thousands of years to slowly lessen and then reverse. That amount of heating and staying at that higher temperature will cause irreversible damage to our ecosystems like making many species go extinct and even changing how the ocean distributes heat all over the globe.
Geoengenieeng is one of the few ways that we could mitigate a lot of the worst case scenarios and will likely be one of the options that nations will almost certainly try to implement in the future. It's better to have the research of how it would affect the climate and our natural systems before we make a decision since we already know that we can do it and how we would do so.
In the end a combination of geoengineering and carbon capture could help the climate return to normal and have it be stable at that level. To avoid companies from using it as a way to avoid decarbonization we could still have the carbon taxes and emissions limits that we are implementing today to pay for these massive projects.
It isn't a perfect solution in any sense of the word but we don't have many other alternatives and every option should be explored in detail to make sure we know what we are doing before we do it.
We're going to miss the goals set for 2030. Countries and leaders, especially of developed states, just aren't up to the task.
Natural climate cycle science at work. The natural rise and falls of temps.
thats good news - countries prefer spending money on useful investments and not some imaginary "problems" created by green globalists that will affect people in 500 years
@@X2LR8 it is influenced by the natural elements and man
@@X2LR8 it’s definitely beyond the natural cycle
When i heard 2030 i knew they were lying
Who’s suffering? Humanity isn’t until they cool us.
Key word’s: could cool
David Keith is suffering and spreading it around.
Wouldn’t all the money be better spent feeding the poor?
The sun shades and mirrors in space one is the best option among them. Unlike releasing particles in the air, it doesn't add anything to the atmosphere and if the calculations are correct and deployment is with care, the reduced light (or maybe just the IR waves) and the increased CO2 will counter each other.
Also it's sustainable as mirrors in space won't need even nearly as much continued renewal as the aerosol option.
have you seen the space around our planet? you would need almost all the resources on earth just to clear it out for that to be an option. and it would cause disastrous problems if deployed. people want to try everything except eliminating what caused the issue in the first place - tiny groups of people controlling all the worlds resources and inflating their egos to the point that they see themselves as gods...
I don't know but kepler effect probably could be a risk here and I don't think we have technology to effectively clean-up the space junk to reduce such risk.
@Zaydan Alfariz Even a very thin sheet of Aluminum works.
Definitely, but it's too expensive right now. Hence these cheaper and more scalable solutions.
@@nadaramadhan3377 I think you're talking about the Kessler syndrome.
For starters it's better to put these shades and mirrors in higher orbits since if we put them in low Earth orbit we would need A LOT of them and their orbits would decay very rapidly, also the higher you go the less the space junk.
The best option is to put them in the Earth-Sun L1 point. There is almost no space junk there and the mirrors can stay in that region between Earth and the Sun.
Also the mirrors won't need much material. They can be very thin.
Some may say we can't do it now but I disagree, all the tech is available, it's just a big task like building the Pyramids was for our ancestors.
Has nobody seen "The Second Renaissance"? The solution is to not spew carbon into the atmosphere and to heavily expand and subsidize clean energy solutions like thorium reactors and solar. The last thing we want is to effect plant growth on this planet which would be far more impactful than warming.
This. These people seem to be forgetting that food is going to be affected by less sun. And we’re already at a crisis point when it comes to food supplies and production.
Cutting down half the amazon/US+UK forests within a 30 year period is playing a large roll
We aren't growing plants around the poles where ice used to reflect sun back to space. I would be very surprised if they're suggesting adding chemicals over population centres or farmland ...
@@SueMyChin Any chemicals we add to the atmosphere will spread across the globe with the wind. I wouldn't mess with the atmosphere.
@@BravoCheesecake It's not as simple as that. If we introduce them at the pole, that is where the majority of light will be reflected. Any particulate that spreads will be so diluted that you would be looking at
This is the real life version of the Futurama episode
Clicked on this vid just to find this comment lol
the idea is a lot older than futurama
That's not true, they are currently spraying, and have been since at least 2015, we have been looking up, and tracking the patterns in the sky, for the last 3 years.
The countries most affected by climate change currently are the ones least able to fight it. But once countries who can afford to research and deploy solar geoengineering start feeling the serious effects of global warming, the temptation might be too much to resist.
This debate reminds me a bit of the current debate over Artificial Intelligence. Some want to ban further development of AI, and others want to continue to develop it. But the fact is, development is going to happen no matter what. So the best we can do is figure out how to monitor and regulate it.
Afford? It is not expensive.
@@heww3960It's not only a monetary cost. Some countries simply do not have the material or knowledge ressources to develop such huge projects. You could compare a city around a castle in the Middle Ages, and another one during the industrial revolution. Both could be considered wealthy enough for their own population, but you will not ask the first one to make and operate a train, because there is this technological gap between them.
@@novaIia As I said, it is cheap very cheap, for any country, even the poorest. Plus this do not really even have to be a additional cost, since you can have it on the regular transport ship etc.
@@heww3960 What is cheap exactly? I wonder what you are referring to here
@@novaIia SAI, marine clouding.
Lets go for the expensive, risky, dramatic solution. Let's not legislate for fuel efficient vehicles, mass transport, battery technology and other required energy solutions. At best something like this is a partial solution. Reality is that very little has been done to reduce emissions and the US has been a huge driver in this. As long as the rich get richer today who cares? Why do you think they are investing in space travel technology? They clearly don't plan to reap what they have sown. They plan to take what they can get and leave.
batteries will not get us to a carbon negative future. neither will "fuel efficient vehicles." we need to either fundamentally alter how we interact with energy and transportation or face the consequences. at best, this buys us time. many cities, especially in the US, need to be demolished. sodium batteries might be able to be mass manufactured for grid storage, but we need much more space efficient solutions than that. nuclear power is a must. international supergrids are a must. continental scale transit solutions are a must. we cannot keep living how we are now.
Where they gonna go?? Mars😂😂. The soil has peroxides. Not a living thing would survive there.
^Perchlorates
No one said this would or should replace other warming reduction methods.
Just so you remember - the issue here is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has led to more of the suns light staying within the earth as opposed to being reflected out. Because of all of this CO2, each moment in 2023, a much larger percentage of the suns energy stays on earth as opposed to 200 years ago. In order to reverse the net increase in global temperature, the percentage of the sun’s energy that stays on earth must be reduced, and at least for some period of time, must be net negative. Even with thorough carbon capture, we will still need to reduce the amount of energy that reaches the earth in order to achieve our prior climate. So some kind of technology is needed, whether it be a solar shield or aerosols or whatever. It will be the final part in reversing climate change if we choose that route
Apple TV+ series "Extrapolations" explores this to an extent.
We are already doing this with chemtrails. Have been for decades.
Global dimming has instead been attributed to an increase in atmospheric particulate matter, predominantly sulfate aerosols, as the result of rapidly growing air pollution due to post-war industrialization.
We've put off reducing our emissions for so long that I don't see how we'll get out of this crisis without adding something drastic like solar geo engineering. I think we need to keep looking into this as a way to help reverse the damage we've done while we reset our energy and consumption.
There is no climate 'crisis'. Doomsayers and fearmongers have been peddling this for decades now and it always turns out to be bunk. Climate is an ever changing thing. The planet is still coming out of the last ice age. The sun's solar weather affects climate more than anything we do. A single volcanic eruption can expel more carbon into the atmosphere than all of human history.
What a lot of ppl say.. but if we don't fix the "actual problem " it's just a patch...
The show "Extrapolations" on Apple TV+ touches on this. It definitely worries me that some day we may see someone who's misinformed use this incorrectly, and it'll have devastating effects.
Should we? THE REAL QUESTION is, should we have started? It has been happening for a LONG time now.
Always speculated on the end Dane, I think it is coming sooner than later...they chip away at us in pieces...here and there, when will the masses scream "NO MORE" will it be to little to late...I have followed you fron the beginning, your words never failed to move me...your truth has never faltered...your stance has never wavered I can only offer to you is my profound loyalty, and will stand beside you as an un- removable rock, most sincerely, yours Joyce...🙏
This sounds like a movie plot device for a new ice age.
It is, its called snow piercer
We do everything but the simple solution of renewable energy that is clean
If we do it could mean that bright sunny days will be of the past. Less sunlight would also drastically effect agriculture which is already having problems due to climate change. In the end isn’t just better to reduce carbon emissions.
Reducing carbon emission is to late for, it only cause more harm than good. The carbon stays up forever basically and it has a delay effect on 10-40 yrs, so even if we get net zero today, it would still continue getting worse, and then you have feedbacks lops that could take over. It is simple to late for reducing our emission. That is not the solution, that would just make it worse.
humanity actually did emit aerosols and it cooled the planet when coal with sulfur was burned for decades. having an alternative that somehow creates energy and a layer of cloud when burned but does not cause acid rain would be a solution for the termination shock problem too.
The thing about these kinds of solutions is that they can very likely become a crisis creator themselves. We ought not to use such solutions as preventative measures when so many other rational and less dire options exist.
Please explain a scenario whereby this happens. Just don't see it...
What are the other options??
They’ve caused all these issues with geo engineering they’ve been doing it for decades
@@LuckyW23 As someone that works outside all day, It seemed very obvious this was heavily happening in upstate NY between 2010-2017. Moving back after 3 years elsewhere, its no where near as obvious, leading me to wonder if the negatives were already known.
@@brandonpaul3985 I find it disgusting that this is now being pitched as a solution when it’s already long underway and is cause of visible climate change. Not to mention the negative environmental effects. The solution is to stop geo engineering
If we reduce or reflect the sunlight from the earth, would we not be risking our food growth, and the impacts of lesser sunlight on our health
as a last resort, maybe? otherwise, we'd just ignore the current, main cause of the heating up in the first place
Agreed. But how do we determine the right moment to deploy last resort tech? Arent we there already?
We're already near the moment of last resort. We need to reserch it now so we can deploy before shtf
Who would ignore the main cause? The people benefiting from co2 release are already being made to reduce by mass opinion not because they want to. That opinion is not going to change.
Weather and atmospheric conditions arise from chaos theory to develop. It seems the height of hubris to say we understand that system well enough that we can deploy particulates without having unintended consequences.
@Zaydan Alfariz I built a Panic Room to get away from this horrible movie.
Sorry what
Well it's the height of hubris to think we can put what amounts to so far 30 cubic miles worth of co2 into the atmosphere without there being side effects. The future is dangerous that's already been decided for us. What we do now is decide which is the lesser danger. Personally I think some solar geoengineering as well as all the other stuff we have to do is a good idea going by everything we know so far about it. Listen to some talks by David Keith, Pete Irvine, stewart Patrick, Jesse Reynolds and wake smith. They lay it out how this could work.
Nobody is saying go full out right away, but if you don’t make small scale peojects to test the idea then you’re obviously never going to know if it would work as intended
@@notinterested7911 but the video said that it would take full cooperation of all of the worlds governments to be effective. It seems like you would need to implement a highly aggressive strategy to have any effect on global temperature
This is a great video, it explores everything and presents sides you may never have though of. The end sentence is really good!
I found that it only presented points against the propositions. Almost none for. The video clearly has a stance.
The calculations for the potential impact on solar influenced winds and the spin of the earth should be a headline on every article? Where is the science? Alterations of water flow and massive dams such as China combined with boring, massive solar absorption by panels and construction are changing wind patterns and spin of earth?. Massive wind pattern disruption by skyscrapers and heat pattern of megalopolis concentrations might be affecting the spin of the earth? Have all the lay thinkers and true scientist been driven from the process? Lay questions here only.
Messing with the Earth? Surely that's totally safe.
We are already messing with the earth.
Well, we may not have a choice in the matter. I'm up for geoengineering.
@@somerandomguy7458 Well, we may not have a choice in the matter. I'm up for geoengineering.
Interfering with Nature has dire consequences. It's cool here in Africa.
Another important reason not to pursue solar geoengineering is that while it can potentially mitigate the risks of heating it cannot prevent ocean acidification and the potential breakdown of marine food chains. Also, as mentioned in the video, solar geoengineering is a powerful disincentive to decarbonization. David Keith at 2:20 saying "we must cut emissions in the long run" sounds dangerous to me, since most climate scientists would agree that emissions must be cut in the short term, urgently.
Are you a vegan then? Do you take mass transit to work? Everyone talks, nobody does.
@@bananian Unfortunately no public transport where I need to go regularly, but I am in the fortunate situation that I can walk to work most of the time, which I do. I use an EV if a car is absolutely necessary, again mostly because I was lucky enough to be able to afford one and I know that production does cause significant emissions, which is why public transport would be a preferable option if possible. Vegetarian, not vegan. In any event, while personal action is important, concerted political action is absolutely required to solve this crisis, and pretending that we have a solution like solar geoengineering while ignoring its massive flaws and, worse, using it as an excuse to go on as before is not a feasible option any more -- assuming we want to mitigate massive damage due to global warming.
olivine can help with ocean acidification though, while also removing co2
We will do everything other than sustainable living.
I vote for calling it "Operation Dark Storm"
Wow I never thought Pinatubo would be an introduction to this
Why not just paint every roof white, that would do that same thing...
That could work.
@@Azure-Witcher in spain they have paint homes for years white to cool them down in the sub. Ok they have red roofs, but we could come up with hydrostatic keep clean white paint that would do the job even in llqces like the uk, goves just have to want to and stop taking 2nd jobs...
That is why traditional Greek architecture is white. It keeps you house cool. But since roofs are practically ground level from an atmospheric perspective at that point most heat has already penetrated the air and will be send back in the same low layers of air having negligible impact.
@elfrjz most roofs are also white, pretty sure that's just stylistic at first. But during the military dictatorship the white and blue coloring actually was mandatory to promote nationalism. The white limestone wash also functioned as disinfectant to stop the spread of Cholera which was an issue at the time and another reason to mandate it. So protection against the heat wasn't the only reason but one of multiple
@@Azure-Witcher it's been already looked into. Painting every roof white can help for localised cooling particularly in cities. But it just isn't enough for the whole world
Geoengineering has been going on for years. Conveniently the cell phone makes people look down.
I wish these docs were longer or bundled up together, such great work Vox!
This sounds like a terrible idea
@@conservativedragon Why?
@@conservativedragon Why?
@@MustacheCashStash125Their handle says it all
Leave the atmosphere alone!!
This is a good debate. I think we shouldn't restrict research; more knowledge would be helpful, if only to know what not to do, especially since this is an issue there's currently very little certainty about. The insights gained from studying the feasibility concerns and risks to the natural environment might be useful beyond just this one idea. I think the arguments for restrictions on actually making this technology are more convincing.
eventually, you’ll have to try it on some level in some way.
I loved snowpeircer, totally nothing wrong here
It’s good that we’re not charging into this recklessly and it’s good that we’re starting to do research so that in the future if we ever really need it, we can deploy it safely.
Errr we've been spraying heavily already since the 2000s
@@janeblogs324 exactly that’s the cause of all this “climate change” now they’re pitching it as a solution. We’re truly run by psychos
1980s.
It exsplains why ny don’t have a summer nomore how it’s always cloudy now with low temperatures
Guys, the IPCC literally drew-up a roadmap we can follow to get through this mess - stuff like Solar Frickin Shades can only honestly be looked-at as a shiny distraction to pursue business-as-normal for as long as possible 🙄
Why? If global warming is now inevitably taking us above target, it seems perfectly sensible to use solar engineering to bring us back below while the transition to lower emissions is completed.
No point being ideological about it.
Yes , we need it and we need it NOW
Loving these short, informative videos; however - is there a specific reason a lot of the animations/graphics are at a very low framerate compared to the rest of the video? This can sometimes create a bit of an eye strain. It would be amazing if this could be improved!
Welcome to vox
It's super complicated, but in one sense it's also super simple. If energy in is greater than energy out, Earth warms up. Solar shields seem like the way to go, then. Long duration reductions on solar energy reaching earth tip the balance of the equation without adding new aerosols to the atmosphere. I've only got a bachelor's in the field, so I'll defer to the experts, lest I find myself atop Mt Dunning-Krueger.
It’s amazing what researchers are doing 👏
Yeah, playing God is amazing.
They already do this in Melbourne Australia according to some people it since the covid lock downs. People see hundreds of large drone planes fly in to the clouds and come down for re-filling of the chemicals.weekly. If you check the Melbourne weather history for the last 3 years almost everyday Saturday, it's either dark, cloudy or rainy and extra cold. So they can plan hich days to rain and which days to be sunny. In this case working days are Sunny and party days are dark. So in Melbourne, the party days are long over.
I noticed the same pattern in NYC over the past few years, roughly from july 2021. Nobody believes me and they say it's mother nature.
Bro is thinking about initiating operation dark storm 💀
We can’t leave anything alone can we…..not even the weather
As seen in your video on India geoengineering, there are often unintended, often difficult to reverse consequences.
If things are difficult to reverse, then shouldn't we be deploying this technology at a small scale, better understand potential consequences before someone uses it on a massive scale? There is no if we use this technology but when, how much we understand it and to what degree we use it.
@@misty6348 it's partly because with almost anything, you can fix all the problems that you do know. But it is only when it is implemented on a large scale that problems, which you may have never predicted, appear. I don't think messing with the fundamental nature of our ecosystem is even remotely sensible.
We can't predict everything and we certainly can't fix everything. That is ever more relevant to a project such as this, there are simply too many variables and factors for it to ever be safe in my opinion.
What chemicals or nano particles will they be spraying because that’s what we’ll be breathing . Plants and trees will take these chemicals up into their system. I think co2 would be a less of a problem. Greenhouses usually crank up their co2 to 800 to 1200 ppm. Plant more trees, lighten up the colors of roads and rooftops
This reminds me of that episode in Jimmy Neutron when they shot up sunscreen into the sky and it went from hot summer to a snowy winter real quick 😂
I say go for it. I have seen big rain showers 2 times this last year..its wild. We need a solution now.
The issue here is we have to commit to this, while also still pushing to reduce emissions. As such this is really a full on last possible option that should be utilized. Because once we deploy this technology, we'll have to maintain it not for a few months, but likely years, decades, or even generations.
Plus, I haven't seen any audited studies that even discuss the effects on plant life for an extended stretch of time.
This is not some big project, so maintain it would be easy, only if the whole society collapse for some other reason, then it would be hard to maintainn. Studie? Well we have done this unintentionally since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and no big issues.
so youre saying they want to destroy the world to save it
Literally making Snowpiercer into reality
Let’s all hope so.
While there isn't anything we can do to course-correct our collective past, I am glad that humanity is using foresight to better scrutinize the decisions that impact our collective future.
What if we combine all the methods like reflecting the sun rays , decarbonization , going green. We could stimulate a large number of minor volcanic eruptions (idk if thats possible) and cause a drop in the temperature as much as we can.
It's like watching an episode of Extrapolations!
i mean if were are talking about painting roofs white then yeah probably but anything other than that? not sure.
I wish we would get behind this.
wouldnt do much. We have ice sheets that have much more surface area than combined urban surface area and they only reflect like 2% of sunlight
Well the Idea to cover sky with clouds to stop sun rays isn't new and this hypothesis was discussed in one very popular film in 1999 and we all well know that this approach was a bad idea, at least to fight machines, but something tells that to fight global warming in a same way will lead to the same result.
vox has become a gold standard of journalism. well done!
just left wing agenda only
They are paid by fossil fuel companies. So easy to see.
Ummm, couldn't we simply change our supposedly non-negotiable, massive carbon footprint lifestyles???
isn't this how the Matrix started?
*I think it's necessary to think in other ways to help solve the problem we put ourselves in, but I don't think we should expedite technologies when we know already, they're gonna get us complacent*
Thank you for sharing this information
Perhaps these scientists should first watch Snowpiercer
Geo engineering sounds a lot like “Chem Trails” lol
Yes. Let's paint all the black roads white.
I fully agree.
I've encountered many articles about solar energy mitigation, but they never include a discussion of how severely this might affect crop yields or photovoltaic electricity production. On the cost/benefit list, are they that minor a concern?
To psychopaths yes
Seems like a bad idea given humanity's track record with actions to override nature. Especially today with EVs growing exponentially and wind/solar + batteries now being the cheapest LCOE of any energy source, it is now not just the right thing to do to head towards carbon neutrality, but the economically logical one in many areas. I think the next few years will be the peak of global CO2 emissions before they start dropping considerably over the next 1-2 decades.
The story of every Post Apocalypse movie.
“ We just wanted to reflect the sun……”
"We blinded some aliens and now they're mad lol"
Worked out well in the Matrix!
That would take an enormous amount of resources and worldwide cooperation, the only benefit is that we get extra time to transition.
Something to note is we have done it before. We pumped cfc’s into the atmosphere as a by product for many products. This is the leading theory as to why global temperatures dropped from 1940-1970 despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. However this is what also caused the Ozone hole to form. We’ve since mostly stopped cfc emissions but it is a real world example of its use but also the major negative consequences that we don’t fully understand.
Well we kinda do know what problems it causes, we've been studying volcanic activity and it's effects on the environment for decades.
This is how Snowpiercer begins.
Back in my day we called this stuff "chemtrails:"
exactly that’s the cause of all this “climate change” now they’re pitching it as a solution. We’re truly run by psychos
Great work and a fascinating question regarding a complex issue. I’m not sure if there is a correct answer with solar geoengineering but one thing is for sure: we must do something drastic to slow down and stop climate change.
We've already started.
I think the most interesting proposal is a solar array in outer space. It would be very expensive but could provide earth with huge amounts of clean energy and lower the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere. It would likely have less negative consequences and the technology already exists. It’s simply a matter of economics, engineering and wether we want thousands of solar panels in orbit.
Solar energy in space would be most effective in a high geostationary orbit. Then the solar panels are in sunlight 99% of the time, they see so much of the earth they can always beam their energy to a receiver (they are so high they could even choose to aim at different continents, to whichever needs the power the most). And they do not have to quickly aim at different angles. But when they are in this high orbit they basically never cast their shadow on earth, so they wouldn't cause cooling. And they are sending energy to earth, so that causes heating in the end too.
You can either have the satellites low, they cast a shadow on earth and they'll be in earth's shadow a lot too. Or you can have them high, where they are not casting shadow on earth and they'll be in constant sunlight.
Someone pointed out a while back that, and I quote, "lol we will fight the sun before we take on capitalism".
9:20 - thank you so much for not saying "...just maybe..."
Sounds like the start of the Snowpiercer!
And things got out of hand with the cooling!
exactly that’s the cause of all this “climate change” now they’re pitching it as a solution. We’re truly run by psychos
Just bringing up the discussion is the most worrying part of it. If we do this, is the dumbest most idiotic decision ever.
I've thought of this before, just holding out with naïve* hope that A.I or engineered clouding of atmosphere or an analogous procedure to actually REVERSE warming. It'd be such a powerful humanity lesson that we'd overcome our vices, collective social pressures keeping us in morbid stagnation towards the abyss, and instead control the overall climate intentionally for the first time for the BETTER!
Generally humans move up with tech and not behind. Heck it was just about 100 years ago when they said the world would be starved to death. Gut we got GMO corn, rice, etc.... we have dozens and dozens of examples of people pushing us forward and not holding us back!
No we should plant & protect trees, achieve net zero, and stop paving the ground with black pavement and paint the existing ones white. Also plants and animals need sunlight
It’s absolutely adorable to me that scientists assume human beings care about future generations LOL 😂
No, that is normal cycle, it happened it he past, and it will happen in the future, and we can't do nothing about that.
I watched Snowpiercer, I thought it was pretty good.
No way! I hate cold weather. Thats why I did move to live closer to equator.
Meanwhile, us here near the equator trying to move to colder countries
"Should we reflect sunlight to cool the planet?"
Nah. The last time someone use this idea before, we stuck inside a dystopian train for many years