Sorry for suggesting a bit cynical approach, but this is just how our societies work.
If this is called "geoengineering" then it will provoke massive protests and legislators will implement paralysis through analysis.
Instead, we should implement this as a minor side effect of an economical activity. Let's say that we would have "stratosphere tourism (for the rich) that emits just a fraction of a percent of SO2 compared to shipping". That would be such a minor issue that nobody would care.
I mean burning fossil fuels, space tourism, flying by plane, emitting gigantic amounts of SO2 by ships, modern massive agriculture etc are all massive acts of geoengineering but as they have not been positioned as such then no-one cares about the geoengineering consecuences.
One thing I would suggest is a PR campaign (your article is a great start!) to explain this to the developed countries population (especially United States). Get ahead of all the naysayers & people who are profiting from the current approaches. Maybe get 60 Minutes to do a story, or even better Fox News!
Stress that this is a temporary measure to help us transition to a lower CO2 world, and that we can scale it up in a measured way to make sure there are no unforeseen impacts.
I essentially agree with everything in this article up to the "Termination Shock" heading, and start disagreeing more and more from there. I agree that stratospheric sulfur SRM is potentially very useful, that governments should encourage research on it, that academics are too cautious about advocating for deployment, and that the rapid growth of renewables makes the "moral hazard" argument nigh-on ridiculous. However, I think one big problem is suggested by to noting that we can use sulfur SRM to "fine-tune" rain patterns: this could very easily be used as a "weather weapon" in economic and/or political conflicts (China already has a track record of smaller-scale silver iodide rain-seeding interventions). I also really, really, really doubt that the Make Sunsets group is the way to go on this (no personal slight to the folks there intended): a few balloons is multiple orders of magnitude away from anything that will move the needle, and asking individuals to pay to scale it up, especially with a "cooling credits" or "offset" selling point, brings to mind the grift-ridden history of carbon credits. I suspect that skipping the "building institutional trust and social license to operate" stage just makes your operation likely to be shut down before it gets anywhere. As Kim Stanley Robinson said in my interview with him recently, this seems a bit like "the physical form of a bad cryptocurrency."
That said, I hope I'm wrong and y'all do manage to pull off a crowdsourced SRM initiative!
Whilst SO2 is purported to do as you say, it is not addressing the cause, only some of the symptoms and can only ever be a short term, stop gap solution to help us potentially avoid tipping points. Sadly, it doesn't help and could arguably make things worse, when you consider ocean acidification.
Also, we could see an increase in asthma and emphysema issues for people with those conditions.
I had paid Making Sunsets some months back when you first mentioned it but at £9/gram I was put off. I have now used your terrific discount to buy a subscription and a largish initial order.
- a current *cost* of $0.28/gram SO2 (not price, which you point out is $10/g)
- 1g of SO2 to balance out one ton of CO2 (a cost of $0.28/ton of CO2)
- the current world production of 37b tons of CO2 (and rising...)
Then this all looks incredibly cost-effective. $0.28 x 37b tons = ±$10b variable cost (not price).
I appreciate that there must be an operating margin - currently their $10 price is 35X their variable cost per gram, but you also suggest that switching from Helium to Hydrogen at scale will reduce variable costs by a factor of 1000, so this still looks cost-effective at scale.
I would like to see it tried full scale for a year or two with lots of measuring buoys/devices to record the effects. Probably easier in that regard if the government is the Overseer to bring in all it's resources like NOAA to help.
Then we take a year or two off and see what happens. If effects are minimal then we can continue the program full bore.
Also, would the olivine ocean treatment help with acidification?
Interesting article and approach. To fight the resistance, it may be beneficial to use the layers of resistance model. The resistance of people to change is composed of different layers that corresponds to the following reservations. If we can answer to all reservations then people will accept the change:
1. I don't agree with your agenda
2. I don't agree with the problem as you state it
3. I don't agree that your solution may be working
4. There will be too much issues to implement your solution
5. I don't agree that you solution will bring the benefits you announced
6. Your solution will have negative side effects
Your article seems to be able to bring answers to most of those reservations.
Good if you look around this meeting. Why don't you join effor with other scientist and look for a global solution?
The traditional SAI set-up based on sulphate aerosols was shown to have several limitations such as stratospheric heating, due to absorption of long wave radiation, or ozone depletion, due to chlorine activation at the particle surfaces. Solid particles are thought to potentially overcome these limitations by having better optical properties and/or larger chemical inertness. In our work, we use for the first time a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean-aerosol-chemistry-climate model SOCOLv4.0, which incorporates a solid particle emission scheme, to assess the SAI effects of the alumina, calcite, and diamond.
Interesting article - while you may very well be right that SO2 injection is the right approach, there are a few points that I think need more attention in your article.
"In some regions, it will rain more than it used to, and vice-versa."
From what I've read (which might be out of date) its highly uncertain how the SO2 would impact local (as opposed to global averge) temperature / rainfall etc. Agriculture, habitability etc are very sensitive to small changes - which is what makes climate change so dangerous, and this is especially true for poor people, who get little say in who gets impacted most. For example - if the impact of the SO2 was to delay the monsoon even by a few days then it could cause millions of deaths when a city runs out of water.
"There’s no turning back for renewables"
This is only partly true, renewables are on a massive growth, but from a global perspective this is mostly delivering more energy, rather than substituting for fossil fuels. Almost every tonne of oil, or barrel of oil extracted gets burned by someone, so until we reduce extraction we won't see a reduction in worldwide missions. Poor countries, with few choices, will buy it if/when the west stops burning it. See https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-production-by-region for example for how Oil production is still growing. Australia and the US are both guilty of approving new fossil fuel infrastructure, even under supposedly center-left governments.
Also, in your Termination Shock section you say "We would be inserting 2% more SO2 than we are already inserting. That’s nothing. ", that's obviously incorrect, if it was nothing then we wouldn't be attempting it. Its precisely because a small amount of SO2 in the right place has a big effect that this is a potential solution, which absolutely creates a Termination Shock if we stop doing it (equal and opposite to the hopefully large effect the injection has).
Some of your math appears to be odd - if I read it correctly you are comparing cost /tonne/(2years) with cost/tonne, i.e. if you put a tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere, it needs a gramme of SO2 added every 2 years while the CO2 is still there, I'm unclear how long that period is, but there is almost certainly a significant multiplier needed when comparing Make Sunsets to the other offsets, You mention this, but just use not quantitive language like "flabbergasting".
Being close to the Equator and a business center I am thinking that Make Sunsets should be considering
Singapore as a location rather than a small island country for launching their balloons. Perhaps getting permission there is a possibility or maybe going there would just strengthen the opposition to SRM.
Sorry for suggesting a bit cynical approach, but this is just how our societies work.
If this is called "geoengineering" then it will provoke massive protests and legislators will implement paralysis through analysis.
Instead, we should implement this as a minor side effect of an economical activity. Let's say that we would have "stratosphere tourism (for the rich) that emits just a fraction of a percent of SO2 compared to shipping". That would be such a minor issue that nobody would care.
I mean burning fossil fuels, space tourism, flying by plane, emitting gigantic amounts of SO2 by ships, modern massive agriculture etc are all massive acts of geoengineering but as they have not been positioned as such then no-one cares about the geoengineering consecuences.
One thing I would suggest is a PR campaign (your article is a great start!) to explain this to the developed countries population (especially United States). Get ahead of all the naysayers & people who are profiting from the current approaches. Maybe get 60 Minutes to do a story, or even better Fox News!
Stress that this is a temporary measure to help us transition to a lower CO2 world, and that we can scale it up in a measured way to make sure there are no unforeseen impacts.
Love the article.
I essentially agree with everything in this article up to the "Termination Shock" heading, and start disagreeing more and more from there. I agree that stratospheric sulfur SRM is potentially very useful, that governments should encourage research on it, that academics are too cautious about advocating for deployment, and that the rapid growth of renewables makes the "moral hazard" argument nigh-on ridiculous. However, I think one big problem is suggested by to noting that we can use sulfur SRM to "fine-tune" rain patterns: this could very easily be used as a "weather weapon" in economic and/or political conflicts (China already has a track record of smaller-scale silver iodide rain-seeding interventions). I also really, really, really doubt that the Make Sunsets group is the way to go on this (no personal slight to the folks there intended): a few balloons is multiple orders of magnitude away from anything that will move the needle, and asking individuals to pay to scale it up, especially with a "cooling credits" or "offset" selling point, brings to mind the grift-ridden history of carbon credits. I suspect that skipping the "building institutional trust and social license to operate" stage just makes your operation likely to be shut down before it gets anywhere. As Kim Stanley Robinson said in my interview with him recently, this seems a bit like "the physical form of a bad cryptocurrency."
That said, I hope I'm wrong and y'all do manage to pull off a crowdsourced SRM initiative!
Whilst SO2 is purported to do as you say, it is not addressing the cause, only some of the symptoms and can only ever be a short term, stop gap solution to help us potentially avoid tipping points. Sadly, it doesn't help and could arguably make things worse, when you consider ocean acidification.
Also, we could see an increase in asthma and emphysema issues for people with those conditions.
But all things needs to be considered.
Great article. Really interesting solution. Thank you also for the discount at Make Sunsets. I'm buying cooling credits from them today!
Thanks Tomas!
I had paid Making Sunsets some months back when you first mentioned it but at £9/gram I was put off. I have now used your terrific discount to buy a subscription and a largish initial order.
Assuming all this is accurate:
- no known material 'cons'
- a current *cost* of $0.28/gram SO2 (not price, which you point out is $10/g)
- 1g of SO2 to balance out one ton of CO2 (a cost of $0.28/ton of CO2)
- the current world production of 37b tons of CO2 (and rising...)
Then this all looks incredibly cost-effective. $0.28 x 37b tons = ±$10b variable cost (not price).
I appreciate that there must be an operating margin - currently their $10 price is 35X their variable cost per gram, but you also suggest that switching from Helium to Hydrogen at scale will reduce variable costs by a factor of 1000, so this still looks cost-effective at scale.
Have I got this math right?
I would like to see it tried full scale for a year or two with lots of measuring buoys/devices to record the effects. Probably easier in that regard if the government is the Overseer to bring in all it's resources like NOAA to help.
Then we take a year or two off and see what happens. If effects are minimal then we can continue the program full bore.
Also, would the olivine ocean treatment help with acidification?
Really interesting. Just subscribed to Sunset!
FYI... just crossed my radar today: https://www.sciencealert.com/injecting-sulfur-into-the-atmosphere-could-pose-dangerous-risks
Interesting article and approach. To fight the resistance, it may be beneficial to use the layers of resistance model. The resistance of people to change is composed of different layers that corresponds to the following reservations. If we can answer to all reservations then people will accept the change:
1. I don't agree with your agenda
2. I don't agree with the problem as you state it
3. I don't agree that your solution may be working
4. There will be too much issues to implement your solution
5. I don't agree that you solution will bring the benefits you announced
6. Your solution will have negative side effects
Your article seems to be able to bring answers to most of those reservations.
let's hope it can trigger some actions.
Hello, I found this tip about limitations of sulphur in stratosfere
https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU24/EGU24-18905.html
Good if you look around this meeting. Why don't you join effor with other scientist and look for a global solution?
The traditional SAI set-up based on sulphate aerosols was shown to have several limitations such as stratospheric heating, due to absorption of long wave radiation, or ozone depletion, due to chlorine activation at the particle surfaces. Solid particles are thought to potentially overcome these limitations by having better optical properties and/or larger chemical inertness. In our work, we use for the first time a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean-aerosol-chemistry-climate model SOCOLv4.0, which incorporates a solid particle emission scheme, to assess the SAI effects of the alumina, calcite, and diamond.
Interesting article - while you may very well be right that SO2 injection is the right approach, there are a few points that I think need more attention in your article.
"In some regions, it will rain more than it used to, and vice-versa."
From what I've read (which might be out of date) its highly uncertain how the SO2 would impact local (as opposed to global averge) temperature / rainfall etc. Agriculture, habitability etc are very sensitive to small changes - which is what makes climate change so dangerous, and this is especially true for poor people, who get little say in who gets impacted most. For example - if the impact of the SO2 was to delay the monsoon even by a few days then it could cause millions of deaths when a city runs out of water.
"There’s no turning back for renewables"
This is only partly true, renewables are on a massive growth, but from a global perspective this is mostly delivering more energy, rather than substituting for fossil fuels. Almost every tonne of oil, or barrel of oil extracted gets burned by someone, so until we reduce extraction we won't see a reduction in worldwide missions. Poor countries, with few choices, will buy it if/when the west stops burning it. See https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-production-by-region for example for how Oil production is still growing. Australia and the US are both guilty of approving new fossil fuel infrastructure, even under supposedly center-left governments.
Also, in your Termination Shock section you say "We would be inserting 2% more SO2 than we are already inserting. That’s nothing. ", that's obviously incorrect, if it was nothing then we wouldn't be attempting it. Its precisely because a small amount of SO2 in the right place has a big effect that this is a potential solution, which absolutely creates a Termination Shock if we stop doing it (equal and opposite to the hopefully large effect the injection has).
Some of your math appears to be odd - if I read it correctly you are comparing cost /tonne/(2years) with cost/tonne, i.e. if you put a tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere, it needs a gramme of SO2 added every 2 years while the CO2 is still there, I'm unclear how long that period is, but there is almost certainly a significant multiplier needed when comparing Make Sunsets to the other offsets, You mention this, but just use not quantitive language like "flabbergasting".
Públicado en meneame.net:
https://www.meneame.net/m/ciencia/como-puede-retrasar-facilmente-cambio-climatico-hoy-inyeccion
Being close to the Equator and a business center I am thinking that Make Sunsets should be considering
Singapore as a location rather than a small island country for launching their balloons. Perhaps getting permission there is a possibility or maybe going there would just strengthen the opposition to SRM.
Can you get carbon credits for removal via sulfur injection?