●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
180180601
story
Posted
by
EditorDavid
y November 22, 2025 @06:35PM
from the giant-geoengineering dept.
In a 2023 pitch to investors, a "well-financed, highly credentialed" startup named Stardust aimed for a "gradual temperature reduction demonstration" in 2027, according to a massive new 9,600-word article from Politico. ("Annually dispersing ~1 million tons of sun-reflecting particles," says one slide. "Equivalent to ~1% extra cloud coverage.")
"Another page told potential investors Stardust had already run low-altitude experiments using 'test particles'," the article notes:
[P]ublic records and interviews with more than three dozen scientists, investors, legal experts and others familiar with the company reveal an organization advancing rapidly to the brink of being able to press "go" on its planet-cooling plans. Meanwhile, Stardust is seeking U.S. government contracts and quietly building an influence machine in Washington to lobby lawmakers and officials in the Trump administration on the need for a regulatory framework that it says is necessary to gain public approval for full-scale deployment....
The presentation also included revenue projections and a series of opportunities for venture capitalists to recoup their investments. Stardust planned to sign "government contracts," said a slide with the company's logo next to an American flag, and consider a "potential acquisition" by 2028.
By 2030, the deck foresaw a "large-scale demonstration" of Stardust's system. At that point, the company claimed it would already be bringing in $200 million per year from its government contracts and eyeing an initial public offering, if it hadn't been sold already.
The article notes that for﹃a widening circle of researchers and government officials,
Stardust's perceived failures to be transparent about its work and technology have triggered a larger conversation about what kind of international governance framework will be needed to regulate a new generation of climate technologies.﹄(Since currently Stardust and its backers "have no legal obligations to adhere to strenuous safety principles or to submit themselves to the public view.")
In October Politico spoke to Stardust CEO, Yanai Yedvab, a former nuclear physicist who was once deputy chief scientist at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. Stardust "was ready to announce the $60 million it had raised from 13 new investors," the article points out, "far larger than any previous investment in solar geoengineering."
[Yedvab] was delighted, he said, not by the money, but what it meant for the project.
"We are, like, few years away from having the technology ready to a level that decisions can be taken" — meaning that deployment was still on track to potentially begin on the timeline laid out in the 2023 pitch deck. The money raised was enough to start "outdoor contained experiments" as soon as April, Yedvab said. These would test how their particles performed inside a plane flying at stratospheric heights, some 11 miles above the Earth's surface... The key thing, he insisted, was the particle was "safe." It would not damage the ozone layer and, when the particles fall back to Earth, they could be absorbed back into the biosphere, he said. Though it's impossible to know this is true until the company releases its formula. Yedvab said this round of testing would make Stardust's technology ready to begin a staged process of full-scale, global deployment before the decade is over — as long as the company can secure a government client. To start, they would only try to stabilize global temperatures — in other words fly enough particles into the sky to counteract the steady rise in greenhouse gas levels — which would initially take a fleet of 100 planes.
This begs the question: should the world attempt solar geoengineering?
That the global temperature would drop is not in question. Britain's Royal Society... said in a report issued in early November that there was little doubt it would be effective. They did not endorse its use, but said that, given the growing interest in this field, there was good reason to be better informed about the side effects... [T]hat doesn't mean it can't have broad benefits when weighed against deleterious climate change, according to Ben Kravitz, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Indiana University who has closely studied the potential effects of solar geoengineering. "There would be some winners and some losers. But in general, some amount of ... stratospheric aerosol injection would likely benefit a whole lot of people, probably most people," he said. Other scientists are far more cautious. The Royal Society report listed a range of potential negative side effects that climate models had displayed, including drought in sub-Saharan Africa. In accompanying documents, it also warned of more intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic and winter droughts in the Mediterranean. But the picture remains partial, meaning there is no way yet to have an informed debate over how useful or not solar geoengineering could be...
And then there's the problem of trying to stop. Because an abrupt end to geoengineering, with all the carbon still in the atmosphere, would cause the temperature to soar suddenly upward with unknown, but likely disastrous, effects... Once the technology is deployed, the entire world would be dependent on it for however long it takes to reduce the trillion or more tons of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to a safe level...
Stardust claims to have solved many technical and safety challenges, especially related to the environmental impacts of the particle, which they say would not harm nature or people. But researchers say the company's current lack of transparency makes it impossible to trust.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the article.
You may like to read:
Meta Plans New AI-Powered 'Morning Brief' Drawn From Facebook and 'External Sources'
PHP 8.5 Brings Long-Awaited Pipe Operator, Adds New URI Tools
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
No. Just no.
twitter
facebook
byshanen ( 462549 ) writes:
Actually that's my initial reaction, too, but I do think there might be some kind of solution. On third thought I'm sure this is not it, but...
If (and that's actually a huge IF) we were able to model the atmosphere well enough, then I think we might be able to intervene in a sane way. My own favorite fantasy solution would be large arrays of orbital mirrors rotated as needed to control the solar energy reaching the earth. Take a bit off the sides here, add some extra crops there...
Time for a joke? We could
byndsurvivor ( 891239 ) writes:
Solar sails is my possible solution, thousands of them 1km square. Bonus if they pass light that is beneficial to plants, and reflect the rest. As far as putting more particulates into the atmosphere, no, just no.
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
At least you can get rid of the solar sails once you don't need them anymore . . .
Parent
twitter
facebook
byRemindMeLater ( 7146661 ) writes:
The math gets very difficult very fast. Look up "Answers with Joe: Space Shades: Humanity's Last Hope" on youtube for a good overview.
byshanen ( 462549 ) writes:
That's why I said it was such a big IF. It is pretty clear that long-range forecasts are not possible, so the solution approach along these lines would involve continuous interventions based on short-range forecasts--and the main threat would be that you might push the system into a non-recoverable state. Perhaps helpful to compare it to fly-by-wire fighter planes with negative dynamic stability? Yes, you can keep such a plane under control, but the corrections and adjustments have to happen quickly, someti
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
Assuming we don't kill one another in a massive war, odds are looking good for nuclear fusion to take over, destroying most of the existing energy market (including fossil fuel providers). That much cheap power would give us better ways of handling atmospheric CO2 levels.
byRemindMeLater ( 7146661 ) writes:
The fallacy is that throughout human history new forms of energy has typically been *additive* to existing forms. We're still burning about the same amount of biomass as we did 40 years ago.
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
Nobody's really brought a radically more cost-effective energy source to challenge fossil fuels. Nuclear and renewables have their advantages, but cost isn't yet one of them.
byAmiMoJo ( 196126 ) writes:
The problem with fusion is that until someone demonstrates a practical way to sustain it and produce energy, it's probably not going to get the kind of funding needed to demonstrate a practical way to sustain it and produce energy. At least not in less than several decades, and we don't have that long.
Like fossil fuels and nuclear, it is competing for funding with renewables. Renewables are mature, are cheap, and the market is growing. Because we are all capitalist societies, that's the only way we can addr
byshanen ( 462549 ) writes:
Basically concurrence except with your time limit (unless we unleash a fresh catastrophe). I currently don't see "global warming" as an existential threat by itself.
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
Keep your eye on Commonwealth and Helion. Things are changing.
byAmiMoJo ( 196126 ) writes:
I really wish them luck, but there have been so many false dawn's on fusion...
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
Sorry, but it's not looking like practical fusion power generation is remotely on the horizon. Even if it really is just thirty years away until we get fusion that outputs more power than the input power required to generate it (we have reached various "breakeven" points, but not actually that one), that does not solve any real problems. As it stands, a true breakeven fusion reactor would, at best, be a drop in replacement for a fission reactor in a power plant. In other words, just a big heat supply to dri
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
Investor momentum is shifting, and smart money is chasing startups like Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion (among others; however, they seem to be the front runners).
Renewables are and continue to be one of the most expensive power generation options on the market (I keep looking for signs that that has changed, and I see nothing on the market today that tells me otherwise). Even novel fission technologies such as SMRs MSRs threaten it from a cost angle (ignoring regulatory costs, which is why MSRs in
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
Even novel fission technologies such as SMRs MSRs threaten it from a cost angle
Sure. So do fairy dust and unicorn farts. Just as soon as we have the fairy dust harvesting operations and unicorn fart extractors up and running - oh, and solve the pesky problem of capturing magical creatures - and actually establish even a basic baseline of the real cost, they will clearly outcompete renewables. That seems to be your argument in a nutshell.
Working fusion reactors would beat everything else on the market on a cost basis and could plug right into the grid, no problem.
So, you're not even hand waving away all the technical problems with fusion reactors (beyond the ones I myself ignored such as actually getting a stab
bynightflameauto ( 6607976 ) writes:
Actually that's my initial reaction, too, but I do think there might be some kind of solution. On third thought I'm sure this is not it, but...
If (and that's actually a huge IF) we were able to model the atmosphere well enough, then I think we might be able to intervene in a sane way. My own favorite fantasy solution would be large arrays of orbital mirrors rotated as needed to control the solar energy reaching the earth. Take a bit off the sides here, add some extra crops there...
Time for a joke? We could use the mirrors to FINALLY get rid of DST. And if we had that atmospheric model we could do it without the adverse side effects...
It'll end up as a forever pay service just like everything else. "Pay us, or we block your sunlight and redirect it to space." That seems to be the way everything we do goes these days.
byshanen ( 462549 ) writes:
Mostly the ACK, but I largely see it as a motivational problem. The people who want money are strongly motivated and the people who just want to get along or even just want to help other people are relatively weakly motivated. It sort of worked when their ambitions for more money were sane, but at this point they have fallen off the edge of insanity.
Leading to my (crazy) conclusion of the incommensurables:
infinity << money << time << infinity
bydbialac ( 320955 ) writes:
We need people to stop worrying about their kids going to school in the dark. I walked through it throughout my schooling. Parents these days drop their kids off.
bytlhIngan ( 30335 ) writes:
We need people to stop worrying about their kids going to school in the dark. I walked through it throughout my schooling. Parents these days drop their kids off.
And get kids outside. "Freedom" as a kid was on a bike, and a pre-teen on a bike can easily cover several miles in a reasonable amount of time. Which in most places should be able to get you to a store and back.
The problem is generally infrastructure and poorly designed neighborhoods - ones where you can be 500 feet away as the crow flies, but take
byshanen ( 462549 ) writes:
My point seems to have been missed on this branch. However doesn't seem worth pursuing the diversion, though I will note that The Anxious Generation by Haidt is informative on the topic of raising children.
byStormwatch ( 703920 ) writes:
Then schools must change their working hours, not time itself. Fuckin duh!
byTooTechy ( 191509 ) writes:
What could possibly go wrong?
byeasyTree ( 1042254 ) writes:
Pretty much everything....
bySeaFox ( 739806 ) writes:
If we do this we can get ahead of the Machines before they develop enough smarts to realize humans can be used as biological batteries to power their AI collective.
Parent
twitter
facebook
by_merlin ( 160982 ) writes:
Blocking the sun to counter environmental damage is the plot of Highlander 2, not the Matrix.
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
Those Whack-ow/i-ski Brothers, violating the Second Law like that...
No, no! Don't forget, they hand waved in "... combined with a type of fusion..." to the process, explaining where the extra energy comes from. I mean, it is complete and utter nonsense since there seems to be no conceivable way that human beings would ever need to be a mediator for the energy in that case. For me, I simply head canon that into the notion that nearly everyone, humans and machines alike simply believes a bunch of lies about what is really going on. I mean, it fits the general theme of realit
byqeveren ( 318805 ) writes:
I mean, global dimming was a growing problem with diesel exhaust, and they want to replicate this effect. jesus wept.
bydbialac ( 320955 ) writes:
We used to have such a thing. We called it air pollution. The particle kind. Cleaning up the air didnâ(TM)t work as well as we thought. Iâ(TM)m no detractor, but we havenâ(TM)t realized that it was actually helping us.
byAmiMoJo ( 196126 ) writes:
It's not necessarily dangerous. We can start small, and anything you put up to block the sun is going to be pushed away from it by the pressure of the photons, or you can stick it in a decaying orbit so it has a limited lifespan.
As long as it is designed to have a limited lifespan and clear itself out naturally, like the tens of thousands of LEO satellites we are throwing up now without much care, the damage that can be done is negligible. Once proven safe we can look at scaling it up, in a way that means i
byswillden ( 191260 ) writes:
The clarity and thoroughness of your reasoning and explanation are impressive.
byBenBoy ( 615230 ) writes:
The final episode of Dinosaurs was so darned depressing ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
twitter
facebook
byMorromist ( 1207276 ) writes:
Uh, even if we wanted to do this why would we contract some random company to do it?
Companies fail, they don't have to be transparent, their leaders are rarely, if ever, responsible for any damage their companies do to people's lives, their primary responsibility is to give value to their shareholders, not do anything good or useful.
They are often led by low-intellegence, money-obsessed sociopaths who aren't actually interested in whatever their company actually does, but rather are entirely interested in becoming as rich as possible.
And talk about too big to fail.
twitter
facebook
byShugart ( 598491 ) writes:
Governments rarely do anything themselves. They usually hire private corporations. I don't see that a government is any more trustworthy than the companies they hire.
byMorromist ( 1207276 ) writes:
"They usually hire private corporations" - they've only been doing that in modern times. Its a bit of a feedback cycle - people who worship the libertarian version of captialism get voted in, cripple the goverment and farm out its work to incompetant companies - then when the shitty companies fail to do good work they blame it on the goverment. These morons are the same people who get mad about how expensive the stuff the military buys is, but also are perfectly happy that we make the military get all its stuff from parasitical corporations that charge it absurd amounts of money for basic things, because they can't bring themselves to think that maybe their simple ideology is flawed.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byjenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) writes:
Uh, even if we wanted to do this why would we contract some random company to do it?
Companies fail, they don't have to be transparent, their leaders are rarely, if ever, responsible for any damage their companies do to people's lives, their primary responsibility is to give value to their shareholders, not do anything good or useful.
Why have we continued to feed all the "random companies" that got us into this mess in the first place? For example, the oil companies knew in the 50's that we would end up where we are now, and created models in the 60's that were still usably accurate into the twenty-teens. They gaslit the world - appropriate pun intended - and they continue to do so. But we still keep buying from them and they are still incredibly rich.
The weaknesses of corporatism are never examined too seriously by the people whose beyond-comfortable lifestyles that corporatism enables.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byargStyopa ( 232550 ) writes:
"why did we continue to feed them?"
Did you forget about how the whole industrial Western world runs on oil and that alternatives didn't meaningfully exist until the last decade (and even now they're basically edge cases)?
It would that spoil your little "durr it's all them corporations fault!" oversimplification?
byjenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) writes:
"why did we continue to feed them?"
Did you forget about how the whole industrial Western world runs on oil and that alternatives didn't meaningfully exist until the last decade (and even now they're basically edge cases)?
It would that spoil your little "durr it's all them corporations fault!" oversimplification?
Fair point, so I'll re-phrase my question: "why did we bury our heads in the sand and refuse to hold both corporations and ourselves accountable".
We were still always going to end up with AGW - but we could have been working on mitigation and reduction strategies for at least five decades which we mostly lost, partly to our own heads-in-the-sand behaviour and largely to corporate sand-bagging.
BTW, I still think "durr it's mostly them corporations fault!" We could have had comfortable, happy, modern existenc
byargStyopa ( 232550 ) writes:
Which draws the AC's like flies. Thanks for playing.
byarglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) writes:
Look a the rest of the story, they've already telegraphed their plan to get rich quick: Their carpetbaggers will head to Washington and join up with their paid lobbyists who will convince the Dear Leader that with his visionary leadership (and unlimited taxpayer funding) they can fix the world and he'll get all the credit for it. How could they not succeed?
byBandraginus ( 901166 ) writes:
Yeah, I agree that there's less altruism and more greed in this initiative. But I think they have an uphill battle there.
The plan only works if you think that global warming is a problem. And Dear Leader believes that it's a hoax...
byBandraginus ( 901166 ) writes:
Ahh, and forgot to add that Dear Leader also doesn't believe that the US (taxpayer) should do the heavy lifting on world affairs. When he's cut funding for WHO, USAID, Paris agreement, etc, it it would be extraordinary if he committed taxpayer funding for this initiative to the world's benefit (even if it actually worked).
bynightflameauto ( 6607976 ) writes:
Uh, even if we wanted to do this why would we contract some random company to do it?
Companies fail, they don't have to be transparent, their leaders are rarely, if ever, responsible for any damage their companies do to people's lives, their primary responsibility is to give value to their shareholders, not do anything good or useful.
They are often led by low-intellegence, money-obsessed sociopaths who aren't actually interested in whatever their company actually does, but rather are entirely interested in becoming as rich as possible.
And talk about too big to fail.
And our government officials insist that private industry is "better" than government at getting things done. Your center paragraph there pretty much defines modern government as well.
"Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?" --Queensryche., Revolution Calling
byBrightCandle ( 636365 ) writes:
The failure of successive COPs to agree to get rid of fossil fuels means that this is going to become necessary. It is going to happen whether we like it or not as their are countries that will benefit from doing it. There is no requirement for the rest of the world to agree to it. It is going to happen, the experiments are clearly already happening.
byMr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) writes:
Nobody will benefit from a half-baked fantasy sponsored by a few lucky imbeciles, who got rich because they successfully lobbied for tax cuts and subsidies from the rest of us and blocked the COP process in the first place.
And the rest of the world may very well respond directly to the ecological threats of trumpism, if its unabashed cretinism continues for too long.
byambrandt12 ( 6486220 ) writes:
Same old song and dance: get rid of fossil fuels and vehicles that need them, switch everyone to an EV, whine because there isn't enough power being produced to charge your Tesla, realize that the natural gas that heats your home and cooks your food and generates power is a fossil fuel and outputs CO2, get rid of natural gas, realize we now need tons more power got all the electric heaters and stoves (on top of more and more datacenters), realize that it'll take hundreds of years for the 'greenhouse' effec
bymrchew1982 ( 2569335 ) writes:
The green side is just as guilty of profiteering on this catastrophe as anyone else, and far better at engineering solutions that require additional investments to work to effectively create a gravy train keeping them in business.
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
First, how is any of that the "same old song and dance"? When has this played out before in history?
As far as EV's go, there is no real issue with producing enough power to operate an EV. If there were, then there would be an equally as large or larger problem with fueling up an equivalent ICEV. There's no whining involved, it's just basic supply and demand economics.
As for natural gas, most people are not dumb enough to not realize it is a fossil fuel. Electric heating for homes using heat pumps is vastly
byambrandt12 ( 6486220 ) writes:
Same old song and dance refers to "It can also refer to broader contexts, such as societal patterns or political issues that keep resurfacing without any real change. For instance, one might comment on a politician's repetitive promises as "the same old song and dance".
So, switch everything to electric without having enough electricity to power everything we switched... wonderful! Fueling up an ICEV uses gas (fossil fuel)... where does the 500kwH or whatever that your Tesla needs come from? Being that the
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
Same old song and dance refers to "It can also refer to broader contexts, such as societal patterns or political issues that keep resurfacing without any real change. For instance, one might comment on a politician's repetitive promises as "the same old song and dance".
You were implying a repeating pattern, but not actually identifying any repeating pattern.
So, switch everything to electric without having enough electricity to power everything we switched... wonderful! Fueling up an ICEV uses gas (fossil fuel)... where does the 500kwH or whatever that your Tesla needs come from? Being that they aren't exactly rushing to build tons more nuclear plants, it's gotta come from somewhere.
Average US household drives 14,200 miles per year. That's 37.88 miles per day. The average EV gets around 3.5 miles to the kWh. That's about 11 kWh per day (ugh, technically three time units that should be cancelling each other there, that's why I hate kWh as a measure). The average us household uses 30 kWh of electricity per day. So, the increase to power EVs would be about 36.7%. Sure, it's an increase, but it's not
byambrandt12 ( 6486220 ) writes:
You're right... we've never had any kind of energy crisis before (like the oil crisis), or a shortage of metals (like during WW2).
About 40% of US corn is used for making ethanol (for E-85), which is added to fossil fuel :-) (maybe they could come up with a power plant that burns straight ethanol).
You do realize that the idiots in charge of finding places to put the datacenters to run the idiotic LLM-AIs are going to cram the buildings anyplace they can, regardless of what they bulldoze or clearcut... and,
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
You're right... we've never had any kind of energy crisis before (like the oil crisis), or a shortage of metals (like during WW2).
What kind of strawman is that? I never said anything about never having had an energy crisis or shortage of metals before. I said that we had never replaced ICE vehicles with EVs and had problems finding enough electricity to charge them either previously or now.
About 40% of US corn is used for making ethanol (for E-85), which is added to fossil fuel :-) (maybe they could come up with a power plant that burns straight ethanol).
I am not sure what your point is here. As it is, plants are not as efficient at producing energy from sunlight as solar panels are, also corn is not the best energy crop anyway, and additionally making ethanol from an energy crop involves multiple s
byZipNada ( 10152669 ) writes:
>> he current trend is very close to the normal periodic cycle
Utter bullshit.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bybloodstar ( 866306 ) writes:
You literally have no idea what you're talking about
If nothing else. Where is the excess energy from the energy budget imbalance going besides into heating the planet?
At least make a real effort to get basic knowledge about the earth system before making remarks.
Your ignorance is not useful.
byGuyRiley ( 836754 ) writes:
Isn't this literally the plot of Snowpiercer? I don't think we have the global rail network in place to support what's left of humanity after this fails.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
byLondoMollari ( 172563 ) writes:
So we are going to solve pollution's effects by releasing more pollution?
byalgaeman ( 600564 ) writes:
I'm sure a 1% decrease in global sunlight will have any downstream effects on PV power or agriculture.
bycascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) writes:
... it would certainly put the hyperventilation industry out of business, to just ... you know ... cool things off a bit.
We can't have that!!
bycascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) writes:
You have to admit; it's a fun thought experiment.
We don't know we will find such a method. But let's say we do. Just for the sake of the thought experiment. Imagine how different people will react. Some will have their favorite cause just plain ... taken away.
byFallOutBoyTonto ( 6835322 ) writes:
So Mr. Burns was right all along?
twitter
facebook
byInoshiro ( 71693 ) writes:
So, we could use the renewable/carbon neutral (or negative) path .... OR .... not, but with lots of extra steps and no guarantee of success?
"And then there's the problem of trying to stop. Because an abrupt end to geoengineering, with all the carbon still in the atmosphere, would cause the temperature to soar suddenly upward with unknown, but likely disastrous, effects... "
Just have an end to fossil-fuel use, you fucking idiots! That's a tractable challenge. That's something we have decades of ex
byviperidaenz ( 2515578 ) writes:
Let's just distribute 1 million tons of microplastics into the atmosphere.
bykencurry ( 471519 ) writes:
For a Bond villain. Who will star? Daniel Craig we need you back.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
So they're spreading this shit and it's going to end up in our lungs, in our water, in our earth, in animals, everywhere? And they're not releasing their formula? What the fuck?
twitter
facebook
byoldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) writes:
Here comes the new Ice Age! Coming Soon! the new Fight the Ice Conference FIC26, we need to pick some beautiful exotic place to bulldoze for a 5 star resort.
byRobinH ( 124750 ) writes:
I read the fiction novel Termination Shock a few years ago and it was about this kind of solar engineering. The premise of the book is pretty solid: it's surprisingly cheap to do this, and there's no international organization to oversee it, and in fact we've been dismantling or at least weakening the rules based global order for a decade or more. Some country or organization somewhere is going to calculate that doing this will be a net benefit to themselves, and will just start doing it. Heck we *were* doing it inadvertently with ship emissions, and when we stopped it created a termination shock of its own [noaa.gov]. There's no way that this won't happen, and then it's going to open the floodgates on geoengineering. Only *then* will we get enough countries together to make some international agreements.
twitter
facebook
byevanh ( 627108 ) writes:
Accidentally, it happened post-WW2 due to smog cover over lots of the northern hemisphere creating a mini-cold period in the 1950s/60s. It was a disaster for Africa.
byDan East ( 318230 ) writes:
Bad idea. We're just a few volcanic eruptions away [wikipedia.org] from wanting all the sunshine we can get.
twitter
facebook
byh33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) writes:
Not to mention nuclear winters. I was expecting that link to mention Mt Pinatubo which happened in the 90s and lowered temps by 1F or so. I agree it's a bad idea but it's good to have a backup plan anyway.
byiggymanz ( 596061 ) writes:
So we just need a properly measured amount of nuclear winter; nuclear winter lite (TM), got it.
Good news, we have centuries of supply for such a thing.
byh33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) writes:
Sure. Climate change and nuclear war are the 2 biggest threats so it's good to know we can survive both if we time it right.
byTablizer ( 95088 ) writes:
This is why techniques with an UNDO button are preferred. Adding mist-generators to cargo ships thus may be a preferred way to add shade (via clouds).
Anyone know how long the dust in TFA lingers?
byrsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
They exist to present to the public as a viable alternative to renewables and transitioning to renewable energy resources in general.
It lets you tell the public that the scientists will figure it all out so they don't need to make any changes to the way we do things today.
It's the exact same scam plastic recycling turned out to be and for the exact same reason.
twitter
facebook
byTimelordQ ( 8197200 ) writes:
Why does this seem like it's a plot straight out of the first "Matrix" movie?
byh33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) writes:
That movie's plot is looking better to me every day. Oh, the AIs are going to feed us and give us a 90's era VR sim? Sign me up for that future. Seriously.
byeasyTree ( 1042254 ) writes:
This is taking painkillers after you've stabbed yourself in the face for no reason.
byiggymanz ( 596061 ) writes:
I can confirm over longer time periods it feels so good when I stop.
byDickHodgman ( 265853 ) writes:
Is not addressed at all by this. That is a major problem caused by climate change.
bymz721 ( 9598430 ) writes:
This should be upvoted. It's a real thing. Excess CO2 is not just a heat issue. I'm not saying things won't be sufficiently desperate for this to become a good idea, but a concern with these schemes is that we (as a species) then go 'oh great, problem solved' and continue with damaging behaviours.
byVenova ( 6474140 ) writes:
microplastics anyone?
byDoubleJ1024 ( 1287512 ) writes:
See subject line........
byZipNada ( 10152669 ) writes:
I asked Perplexity what this mysterious particle is that they would release.
"the company indicates that it is made from naturally occurring ingredients and claims it to be environmentally safe, not damaging the ozone layer, and absorbable back into the biosphere after falling to Earth."
And then how the particles would be put in place;
"uses high-altitude balloon payloads as its primary release technology, deploying specialized containers that disperse the reflective particles into the stratosphere. These con
bythesjaakspoiler ( 4782965 ) writes:
We'll be riding around the planet for the next 4 decades!
twitter
facebook
byBaron_Yam ( 643147 ) writes:
1) Produce an excess of energy using methods that do not release CO2
2) Use the excess energy to sequester atmospheric CO2
3) Repeat until atmospheric CO2 levels are at pre-industrial levels
There are no shortcuts. If you skip step one and attempt step two, you have a net increase in CO2 release. If you avoid this whole plan by adjusting insolation, you get a break on the temperature while we inevitably ignore the continually increasing CO2 and all the other issues it brings, and you make us dependent on maintaining the new artificial insolation management system - and when it one day fails, there will be that much more CO2 to deal with.
You may also want to consider that with rising CO2 levels comes cognitive impairment. It won't be much of an issue outside with the numbers we're talking about, but indoor air (which we spend an awful lot of time breathing) only reduces CO2 levels by mixing with outdoor air. The indoor CO2 levels are always higher, and that will get worse as outdoor levels rise.
twitter
facebook
byedi_guy ( 2225738 ) writes:
1. Reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses going into the evironment today.
2. Encourage reductions in birthrates. aka globably free Nexalplon and financial incentives to have fewer children
âoe1980â(TM)s population with 21st century technologyâ
That would be a very pleasant world to inhabit.
3. As described above, implement schemes using cleaner energy aka solar, wind, geo, nuclear if they can make it happen. The environmentalists need to get on board as there are tradeoffs â¦cover
byswillden ( 191260 ) writes:
2. Encourage reductions in birthrates. aka globably free Nexalplon and financial incentives to have fewer children
Global birth rates are already crashing. Most of the developed world is already well below replacement and is increasingly dependent on immigration. On current trends the global population is already slated to start declining within 15-20 years. The decline is likely to cause serious problems within 50 years, and if at some point we don't reverse or slow the decline, within 100 years we may struggle to maintain our knowledge base (ignoring AI, which probably shouldn't be ignored).
byswillden ( 191260 ) writes:
1) Produce an excess of energy using methods that do not release CO2
What you describe is the only solution, but it almost certainly can't happen fast enough to prevent massive climate-caused death tolls, including lots of wars produced by the need to relocate billions of people and restructure global agriculture. The enormous refugee crises and wars are, of course, going to disrupt the technology transition that your solution necessarily and correctly relies on, which will slow it down, resulting in even more emissions and more warming.
I think we very well might have to
bysonoronos ( 610381 ) writes:
Reduce the effectiveness of solar panels by reducing global insolation. All you have to do is fuck up the planet just enough to close the gap making the perceived costs of going nuclear unpopular.
twitter
facebook
bysirv ( 4898197 ) writes:
We are saved. And I really was hoping that the most aggressive pervasive expansive violent psychopathic species in this arm of the galaxy would perish.
byOrangeTide ( 124937 ) writes:
The richest 1% burn through their entire annual carbon share in just 10 days.
twitter
facebook
byjoshuark ( 6549270 ) writes:
C. Montgomery Burns tried this idea...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And I agree with Waylon Smithers, "Owls will deafen us with incessant hooting..." Woodsy the Owl will become our greatest nemesis...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] the new "dirty bird" without the sun. The new golden age, of darkness looms overhead...
JoshK.
bykertaamo ( 16100 ) writes:
I always thought dumping crap into the atmosphere was called pollution. Not only frowned upon but illegal in many palaces. Heck here in Finland they want to stop us burning wood in the stoves of our homes because of it.
So they basically want to cause the equivalent of a Krakatoa eruption every year. What could possibly go wrong?
Madness.
byBu11etmagnet ( 1071376 ) writes:
Instead of blotting out the sun, ask for a black hole sun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
bybsdetector101 ( 6345122 ) writes:
Rather NOT find out !
bysyntap ( 242090 ) writes:
Raises the question.
https://www.masterclass.com/ar... [masterclass.com]
byVandil X ( 636030 ) writes:
We already have microplastics in our bodies, please don't sully the air, so some corporate scumbags can retire with golden parachutes.
byLavandera ( 7308312 ) writes:
It will be much cheaper and more effective:
Just dismantling russia would reduce CO2 emission a lot...
byAnonymous Coward writes:
The website you've linked to was created by the Heartland Institute. It's a very upstanding conservative think tank that, in the 1990s, attempted to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobbied against smoking bans. In the 2000s they refocused on denying climate change.
The funny thing is that if you google for climateataglance, your fun website comes up as the first hit. The second hit is the page "Climate at a Glance" from the NOAA. I'm sure the similar names are a pure coincidence.
Sounds like you've provided an incredibly reliable source.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
Well, to be fair, one of the reasons they maybe don't explain things so well is that their plan is basically to "blot out the sun". Basically, they plain to stain the sky so that less sun will get through. While, yes, this would reduce temperatures on Earth, it would also dim the sun, which means that, among other issues, agricultural land will become less productive. They obviously don't want to go into the consequences of that or who will pay for the damages to every farmer on Earth.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
509 commentsTrump Orders Treasury Secretary To Stop Minting Pennies
●
491 commentsTrump Signs Order Aiming To Close the Education Department
●
464 commentsTrump Opens Trade Talks Window While Threatening China With Steeper Tariffs
●
381 commentsScott Adams, Creator of the 'Dilbert' Comic Strip, Dies at 68
●
361 commentsChina Halts Rare Earth Exports Globally
PHP 8.5 Brings Long-Awaited Pipe Operator, Adds New URI Tools
Meta Plans New AI-Powered 'Morning Brief' Drawn From Facebook and 'External Sources'
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
PHP 8.5 Brings Long-Awaited Pipe Operator, Adds New URI Tools
18comments
Meta Plans New AI-Powered 'Morning Brief' Drawn From Facebook and 'External Sources'
14comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...