Yes, Virginia, We Can Block the Sun (Maybe). No, We Shouldn’t.

Avatar

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He is on Twitter, blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

20 Responses

  1. Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

    cargo ships don’t run on wind

    Not yet, anyway.Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird says:

    It is better to fight in the shade.

    Also, having the government show up and say “hey! We can distribute aerosolized chemicals from high altitude planes!” is some Alex Jones stuff.Report

  3. Avatar James K says:

    A carbon tax would be the best approach, unfortunately it would take international cooperation to make it happen and that’s just not going to happen. It would be political suicide for any country to implement the kind of taxation needed to actually solve climate change. On top of that, every country has an incentive to hang back and let other countries bear most of the cost.

    There is no political solution to climate change – ultimately this is just a question of how long it takes for zero-carbon energy to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels, and how much damage the climate will suffer before that happens. This i why I think there might be a role for some geoengineering – not as a solution, but as a stopgap measure to forestall the worst from happening.Report

  4. Avatar Fish says:

    I hear there’s an eccentric Scottish sword collector who might have some ideas about this…Report

  5. Avatar Chip Daniels says:

    It also doesn’t even begin to address the underlying problem.

    The problem with global warming isn’t even warming itself, which would be awful enough, but the way our industrial processes affect the global ecosystem.

    On every front, the way we extract resources, refine them, assemble them, use them, and dispose them is putting a tremendous strain on the ecosystem.

    This is the “I’ll just get a liver transplant” response we get from drunks.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      That would be the urban view. Out in the countryside, over vast tracks of which you can’t even tell humans are present on the planet, things look different. The encroachment into the environment is almost entirely farms, and the more intensive our agriculture is, the less land it takes to produce the same amount of food.

      But take resource extraction. The world’s largest iron ore mine, Carajas in Brazil, covers about 10 square miles (Google map. It has a metric tonne of iron ore for almost everyone on the planet. It’s about an eighth the size of Akron Ohio or Cincinatti.

      The Kiruna Iron Mine in Sweden, the world’s largest underground iron mine, has produced about a billion tons of iron ore, with 2 billion tons to go, yet it only takes up about 4 square miles and only employs about 400 miners.

      The world’s largest open pit diamond mine is about the size of three golf courses.

      US metal mining only employs about 40,000 miners, and the houses and yards those miners live in probably take up more land area than the mines they work. US coal mining only employs about 70,000 people, about the same as stone mining (somebody has to make all those granite countertops and gravel driveways).

      If you want to know what is straining the ecosystem, it’s not the mines, it’s all those massive coffee plantations that supply Starbucks.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner says:

        Yes, its the coffee plantations.
        And the palm oil plantations. And the cocoa plantations. and the hardwood logging.

        Its the intensive overfishing, the pumping of the aquifers (hey, just because you can’t see it doesn’t meaning its not happening). Its the draining of chemical runoff into the watershed, the pollution in the air.

        Its the loss of habitat, the damming of the rivers, and on and on and on.

        The damage to the ecosystem is coming from a million different points. Global warming is just one symptom of a systemic problem.Report

  6. Avatar Philip H says:

    George Turner: That would be the urban view.Out in the countryside, over vast tracks of which you can’t even tell humans are present on the planet, things look different.The encroachment into the environment is almost entirely farms, and the more intensive our agriculture is, the less land it takes to produce the same amount of food.

    While the encroachment may be more easily spotted in farming areas, its not the only place where human presence is easily detectable. Even over the desert south west there are roads, utility right of ways, pipelines, and a thousand thousand dirt track trails, all with some sort of impact.

    US metal mining only employs about 40,000 miners, and the houses and yards those miners live in probably take up more land area than the mines they work.US coal mining only employs about 70,000 people, about the same as stone mining (somebodyhas to make all those granite countertops and gravel driveways).

    If you want to know what is straining the ecosystem, it’s not the mines, it’s all those massive coffee plantations that supply Starbucks.

    That’s an awfully short sighted view. No one is suggesting the mines themselves are significant contributors to climate change – its what we choose to do with the mining products that is the place where impact exists.

    I love stories like these, because the completely IGNORE evidence from other prior attempts at large scale geoengineering that get to our author’s main points (HERE, and HERE).Report

  7. Avatar Philip H says:

    James K: There is no political solution to climate change – ultimately this is just a question of how long it takes for zero-carbon energy to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels, and how much damage the climate will suffer before that happens. This i why I think there might be a role for some geoengineering – not as a solution, but as a stopgap measure to forestall the worst from happening.

    Unfettered capitalistic economies don’t make rational resource choices. They have landed at a point in time where short term profit boosting reigns supreme as the Raison d’tere and take no concern with accurately pricing common goods like environmental impacts of resource extrication. Thus government intervention is almost assured, and that intervention happens in the political realm, no matter how much we may wish otherwise.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Philip H says:

      What James might mean by no political social to climate change is that every political soilytion would result in lowering the standard of living. People would need to drive less, live in denser conditions, eat less meat, have fewer stuff, etc. No electorate will stand for this. Any attempts to impose it will result in a revolt like the one going on in France over gas taxes. Good luck getting an electorate to go along with this.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

        This is a good example:
        “Retreat Is Not An Option”

        The town of Del Mar is being threatened by rising seas, and the only available options range from Awful to Catastrophic-
        (Building buildings higher; Building higher sea walls; Or moving away from the rising water)

        The first two are wildly expensive, but the last is political and financial suicide.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Philip H says:

      Socialist system are vastly worse. After the Berlin Wall fell we got a good look at socialist environments. I think we’re still paying for cleaning up what we would classify as Superfund regions. The great thing about government intervention is that governments can intervene to make sure every last resource is extracted, whatever the environmental damage and social cost, because government always knows best.

      The advantage of capitalism is that we can travel to socialist countries and cut lucrative deals with their governments to rape their resources without all the red tape and problems we’d encounter here due to property rights and guns and such.Report

    • Avatar James K in reply to Philip H says:

      @Philip H

      To be clear, I don’t mean that there is nothing governments can or should do about climate change, rather that there’s nothing they will do. So you understand that I have a good handle on the topic, here’s a link to an article I wrote for this blog on externalities, why markets’ can’t deal with them and what government should do about them:
      https://ordinary-times.com/2015/11/23/market-failure-2-externalities-coase-and-effect/

      The optimal solution would be a global carbon tax, once a properly-set tax was implemented the market could take care of the rest. But any serious attempt to curb climate change will lower standards of living in the short term and that will be political suicide for any government that attempts it. And so our governments will ignore reality until it is too late.Report

      • Avatar Philip H in reply to James K says:

        And to be clear as well – as a federal scientist who works in an agency that is studying and reporting on the effects of climate change nearly daily I am beyond weary of this idiotic drum beat that “our government” will ignore this until it is too late. Congress MAY ignore it until it is too late, but government isn’t, hasn’t been and won’t. Hell there are laws that tell us to not ignore it, and no Administration has the ability to direct federal civil servants to ignore those laws, no matter how inconvenient they are. So if “government” is going to be blamed, at least do me and my colleagues the solid of blaming at part of government that is actually the problem – and then doing something about hat at the ballot box.

        I would add that while national level elected representatives may choose to put thier heads in the sand, many state and county/parish governments are NOT choosing to do so. They may not be able to deliver a market appropriate carbon tax, but they can and do make electrical power, infrastructure and other decisions and requirements all the time that can drive market forces to respond.Report

        • Avatar James K in reply to Philip H says:

          @philip h

          Ah, yes I can see how that would be frustrating. I’m a government employee myself – I’m an economist working for the New Zealand government.

          When I speak of ‘government’ in this context I don’t mean the researchers who are desperately trying to warn everybody of disaster, I mean the politicians who are empowered to actually make the requisite legislative changes, but won’t because if they do they’ll be voted out and replaced by politicians who will tell people that no real sacrifices need be made.

          And this isn’t a US specific problem either – the price of carbon on the European Carbon Market is less than a third of what it would need to be to even start addressing Climate Change, there were recently riots in France because of new petrol taxes, even the Chinese government’s stability depends on keeping its citizens too rich to care about their government’s authoritarianism. Governments retain power by promoting and preserving short-term economic performance, and there’s no way to solve climate change without harming short-term economic performance.

          Given a choice between making significant sacrifices and pretending everything is fine, people will choose to pretend right up until the point the catastrophe is too large to ignore any more.Report

  8. Avatar Philip H says:

    Chip Daniels: This is a good example: “Retreat Is Not An Option”

    The town of Del Mar is being threatened by rising seas, and the only available options range from Awful to Catastrophic- (Building buildings higher; Building higher sea walls; Or moving away from the rising water)

    The first two are wildly expensive, but the last is political and financial suicide.

    And so are to stick our heads in the actual sand until the waters literally cover Del Mar? What’s that get us? The most recent national Climate Assessment makes abundantly clear that we spend billions now rebuilding infrastructure along the coast that is already being damaged by these shifts. We will spend billions more as crops have to move more northerly to adjust to temperature changes – ditto fishing in the ocean. Never mind that the last – what 2 or 3 – quadrennial Defense Analyses from DoD have all listed climate change driven regional conflict as the most significant threats they have to plan for.

    And all that eave aside the potential economic upsides – like how there are now almost 10 times the number of people employed in the Solar industry nationally as the Coal mining industry, or that freshly minted wind turbine maintainers out of vo-tech schools can make $70 or $80K a year with no experience because they are in so much demand.

    As to the driving thing – why do we need to drive so much? Because we as nation made literally a million decisions to decentralize our towns and cities, taking our shopping schools and public services out of relatively small and easily walkable enclaves and flinging them to the four winds because we also as a nation decided to ditch effective rail and transit networks in the 1950’s in favor of cars. If amazon is serious about delivering everything we need to live via drone – while I have issues with amazon – it represents a way forward.

    Look, we put men on the moon and in the deepest parts of the ocean in the same decade. There are solutions to many of these challenges as well as the entire crisis that can and will be beneficial for the climate and human economies. We can start implementing them now. But we have to ditch the all or nothing approaches AND stop using government to prop up economic sectors that are failing us in this regard. I don’t want to hand my grandkids keys to a boat to go to the sore in Nebraska. Yet if we keep running around with our hands in the air screaming like the proverbial chicken after the acorn drops on its head, that’s what’s going to happen. And I have no intention of sitting idly by while it does.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *