This is MUCH Easier then CUTTING into Billionaires Profits!
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
24 points (87.5% liked)
Climate
8737 readers
74 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean history. Look at the push for recycling that we had. Why it is the only R that doesn't reduce profits. And turned out to be a lie.
Yeah, this can even be sold so billionaires get even richer!
And as the governments will pay for it, we all automatically pay for it
How sweet is that?
Yes it is, and yes, billionaires need to disappear
Having said that, we may not have an option. We've allowed assholes and billionaires to destroy the planet for such a long time that we will likely need measures beyond capturing CO2
Hell, capturing CO2 itself doesn't make much sense until nearly all CO2 generating power sources have been replaced, and we're not nearly close to that. And even when we do start really capturing CO2, if we spend half the world's energy budged in that, we'd still need to keep that up for decades at least to get to acceptable levels. Yes, we've been pumping CO2 into our environment at alarming rates for a fucking long time, and all the energy we got in exchange also needs to be spent (plus a whole lot extra) to get it out of the atmosphere again.
One of the things we can do is using the same pollutants from back in the 80s that caused acidic rain. Obviously this isn't what you want, but one of the side effects nis that it cooled the planet, which IS what we want. This could buy us maybe a few decades of reprieve
What pollutants from the 80s are you talking about?
Or cutting into their flesh with steak knives!
I can't see how this could possibly go wrong . . . except in every possible way.
What? You DON'T want another K-T?
We have K-T at home.
No, it can do nothing or very little but the massive amount of warming from co2 will last thousands of years even with net neutral carbon emissions. We've already been dumping tons of sulfur in the atmosphere by diesel burning. The drop in sulfur emissions from ocean shipping made a clear increase in temperature.
@silence7 “moving from computer modelling into serious practical engineering research”
More like skipping the step where they show their idea works in a computer model and going straight to polluting the atmosphere.
Maybe polluting the atmosphere without thinking about the consequences is what got us in this mess to begin with.
We're actually fairly sure it works; the big issue is that it will redistribute who gets rainfall.
It's been done on very small scale tests like the SCOPEx test. It's done with marine cloud brightening (MCB) which is a different thing.
However, SAI is absolutely dangerous and if it's not continued indefinitely it will lead to termination shock. Because all of the CO2 emissions remain and will even increase, if you suddenly let that sun energy in again, all of the bad climate change effects will happen in months to several years, instead of many decades like it would normally. That would absolutely lead to war, billions dead, most agriculture dead, and near a complete collapse of the entire biosphere.
Yes. And because of how long CO2 concentration remains elevated, it needs to be continued for longer than civilizations last.
You just made previous comments advocating for it though, so I was pointing out the biggest danger of it, but now you're acknowledging this issue?
@silence7 no, no we don’t.
We know it can have localized impacts that move the problem around and make it worse for others, which makes trying to implement it in an uncoordinated manner, particularly without a computer model driving the plan, a dick move
Volcano sulfur emissions are well known and the same thing from shipping emissions.
@Einskjaldi @silence7 sulfate aerosols cause acid rain, respiratory irritation, and can even cause severe cardiopulmonary diseases leading to premature deaths.
But even if we could find some reflective aerosol that isn't toxic, computer models of SRM/geoengineering have shown frightening negative side effects including slowed global circulation leading to an uneven temperature gradient that would disrupt the jetstream, leading to increased atmospheric blocking in the form of stagnant high-pressure systems that lock in hot air for extended periods a.k.a. "heat domes" and effectively exacerbating some of the worst problems the climate crisis is already causing
https://news.mit.edu/2020/reflecting-sunlight-cool-planet-storm-0602
It looks like the article you linked discussing the potential effect aerosols have on storms and the heat gradients don't really change in the northern hemisphere with or without the aerosols. The southern there is a slight change but I'm not sure what conclusions can be made from that. They also are assuming either quadrupling or doubling of current CO2 levels which doesn't sound realistic considering renewables and batteries are either cheaper or at price parity in many situations and only getting cheaper by comparison. With most of transportation, energy generation, industrial heat, and space heating greatly reducing their carbon footprint in the next 5-10 years I don't see us doubling our CO2 concentration. Does SO2 cause problems yeah, but in the low concentrations that it would be at and in the upper atmosphere where it would spend less time raining down to earth it's better than the alternative. Are there possible strategies of releasing aerosols in certain locations to minimize the negative externalities idk but that's why the research needs to be done.
I see a lotmof replies being very negative about this, and I get the gut reaction, but this actually maybe a good thing, sort of. We don't want it, but we may really need it
We've allowed assholes and billionaires to destroy the planet for such a long time that we will likely need measures beyond capturing CO2
Hell, capturing CO2 itself doesn't make much sense until nearly all CO2 generating power sources have been replaced, and we're not nearly close to that. And even when we do start really capturing CO2, if we spend half the world's energy budged in that, we'd still need to keep that up for decades at least to get to acceptable levels. Yes, we've been pumping CO2 into our environment at alarming rates for a fucking long time, and all the energy we got in exchange also needs to be spent (plus a whole lot extra) to get it out of the atmosphere again.
One of the things we can do is using the same pollutants from back in the 80s that caused acidic rain. Obviously this isn't what you want, but one of the side effects nis that it cooled the planet, which IS what we want. This could buy us maybe a few decades of reprieve while we fix the CO2 issue
Look up termination shock. I worked on SAI (detection and attribution management) for a project for about 6 months, so I know more than the average person on this.
-
They already do this with marine cloud brightening, which doesn't inject sulfur dioxide high up into the atmosphere, so it's lower risk and more local
-
This would give a pass to the polluters to continue full speed ahead, but will cause unequal effects across the globe. This will lead to more geopolitical conflict, possibly wars, as one state can cause another to go through a drought and potentially kill millions of people. At the same time, another area can get monsoons and similarly kill a bunch of people. And termination shock will almost certainly cause the entire biosphere on earth to collapse. If SAI is stopped, then that sun energy coming in and interacting with the existing high levels of CO2 will cause all of the negative climate change effects in a matter of months or years, instead of several decades.
yeah and if poisoning the air more does not help then we can try the water and earth some more. these are just not good even temporary solutions. you hit the nail on the head with we first and foremost have to stop producing greenhouse gases.
goddamn it did y'all motherfuckers not watch Snowpiercer or what
Snowpiercer, here we come!
I mean, this is literally going to be Termination Shock by Neal Stephenson.
Depressing that this will probably be used as an excuse to just keep burning more fossil fuels for even longer.
.