Let’s not block out sunshine using hi-tech upper atmosphere pollution, OK?
In and AP interview (how much longer will we be able to reference those by the way?) President Obama’s top science adviser John Holdren suggested that we may have to launch extra pollution into the upper atmosphere in order to prevent the rays of the sun from reaching Earth.
This, of course, isn’t anyone’s first choice when it comes to addressing global warming, but as Holdren–who has an outstanding legacy of science-based activism–points out, when it comes to global warming we are “in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog.”
His point seems to be that if we don’t take bold action very soon, we might get desperate as we face more and more of the consequences of climate change and have to consider drastic and frightening remedies.
So, please, let’s try to handle this before we have to look at crazy ideas like blocking out the sun.
See, this idea scares me.
Why?
Because I think that’s exactly what the humans tried in The Matrix and they just ended up with ruined cities, a perpetual lightning storm, and giant machines fueled by farming human bodies. Remember?
11 Responses to “Let’s not block out sunshine using hi-tech upper atmosphere pollution, OK?”
Leave a Reply
All comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. Valid email addresses are required. (RAN respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)
April 10th, 2009 at 7:27 am
I agree, this idea scares me. Instead, we must take the measures required to reverse global warming, and accept the inconveniences and sacrifices this entails. It is far safer in the long run.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Geo-engineering is the name for this scheme. The most popular version of it is to send sulphur particles into the upper atomspher to deflect sunlight. A recent scientific study has shown that this would likely burn away much of the ozone layer in the process, irradiating the Earth and destroying much of its lifeforms (including of course many millions of people). So yes, it is far better to engage in mitigation of climate change than crazy “adaptation” schemes such as advocated by geo-engineering scientists. The consequences of such schemes are as bad as the climate change, so instead of both, let us have neither. The problem is that industrial society is not slowing down? What are we to do? I fear that the geo-engineers will get their way and fry us :(
April 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Respectfully…Don’t be fools for all of your very temporary existences. The only truly reasoned way to regain the health of this very limited planet that we exist upon, is to adapt & use all of the “green energy technology” that we can get up & running. To attempt to use any compromising measure is like cutting off your own to spite your face….
April 11th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I say no to blocking sunlight. Instead use sunlight and wind to power the world’s machines, and stop using oil and coal.
April 12th, 2009 at 6:31 am
See the link http://www.atmocean.com/ for a non-polluting answer to increasing the CO2-absorbing power of the ocean while creating oases for plankton, fish, and ocean mammals even in ocean “deserts”. If this type of technology were distributed widely, no one would even think about seeding the atmosphere with pollution, which is a terrrifying idea for so many reasons.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:33 am
I can’t understand how a respectable Professor of Environmental Policy could even suggest such a thing–like those scientists who want to send gigantic mirrors into space, or the satirical Dr. Strangelove suggesting that the president build an elite fortress miles below the Earth’s surface and select a 1/10 ratio of elitists/Playboy bunnies for breading. Blocking out the sun for any reason isn’t something a rational person should employ beyond fictional thought. Pres. Obama’s aura must be making people crazy lol (whereas Bush’s inert black hole only made people stupid).
April 14th, 2009 at 5:37 am
“breading”–sort of like cloning with yeast. Should have been “breeding” sry
June 9th, 2009 at 7:15 am
It’s an interesting blog you have here. I’ve learned some new information. I’ve bookmarked your site and I’ll be back.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Sounds like a great idea to me. Think of the possible benefits: the Sahara might be lush again after thousands of years; we may actually have normal winters again; Santa won’t have to drown; outfielders won’t lose on pop-fly balls; we could save on summer cooling costs; Republicans might move to Panama. I’m sold–do it!
February 10th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Really great info, I thoroughly enjoyed it!