Let’s not block out sunshine using hi-tech upper atmosphere pollution, OK?

Written by Robin

Topics: Climate

share this story
facebook twitter email stumble upon
Get RAN Alerts

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?

12 Comments For This Post I'd Love to Hear Yours!

  1. Emelie Olson says:

    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.

  2. Paul York says:

    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 :(

  3. Bob Bousquet says:

    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….

  4. Tony Solomon says:

    I say no to blocking sunlight. Instead use sunlight and wind to power the world’s machines, and stop using oil and coal.

  5. Donna Newman says:

    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.

  6. Fen Fitzarthur says:

    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).

  7. Fen Fitzarthur says:

    “breading”–sort of like cloning with yeast. Should have been “breeding” sry

  8. Ada says:

    It’s an interesting blog you have here. I’ve learned some new information. I’ve bookmarked your site and I’ll be back.

  9. peter miller says:

    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.

  10. Brian says:

    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!

  11. Garrett says:

    Really great info, I thoroughly enjoyed it!

  12. Though I am  a common person with only 2 years of college, even I can see the wood for the trees.  Not many, percentage-wise,  live near an oil refinery or only a few blocks from an interstate freeway running through a major metropolis as do I,  and understand the direct realities of the use of fossil fuels.  Why is it that we theorize, postulate, and charily dance around the elephant in the room? $500 Trillion annual profits to a few hundred families through the promulgation of the profusion of sequestered autochthonous producing atmospheric provocateurs renders little chance of any alternative energy source truly flowering short of grass roots revolution.  It is well established by anyone who takes the time to investigate that there are many sources or methods of energy, free of pollution that have been doused by monopolistic oligarchy’s smothering stench that grows more pungent by each legitimate challenge it snuffs out.   Nothing short of confronting the elephant is going to absolve, resolve, or dissolve the problem, and elephants want to live, so face-off could get pretty ugly.  Hard choices have to be made, and Mr. Holdrfen’s solution is like jumping into a life-boat floating next to the burning building one stands on as it buoy-ants down the river toward Niagara Falls!

Leave a Comment Here's Your Chance to Be Heard!

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.