ReportWire

Tag: geoengineering

  • Elon Musk Wants to Block Out the Sun

    [ad_1]

    Earth’s average temperature is nearing critical thresholds as the international community lags behind its emissions goals. As a result, bold technological strategies to cool the planet have gained attention in recent years, and now, Elon Musk is weighing in.

    Early Monday morning, Musk took to X to share his two cents on how to address the climate crisis. He claimed that using satellites for solar radiation management (SRM)—a theoretical geoengineering technique that would allow humans to control the amount of sunlight reaching Earth—would be an effective solution.

    “A large solar-powered AI satellite constellation would be able to prevent global warming by making tiny adjustments in how much solar energy reached Earth,” Musk wrote.

    When asked how this would ensure precise, equitable adjustments to solar energy across the planet—while also accounting for seasonal variations and potential geopolitical conflicts over control—Musk replied: “Yes. It would only take tiny adjustments to prevent global warming or global cooling for that matter. Earth has been a snowball [many] times in the past.”

    So, it would appear he doesn’t quite have all the answers. That said, it’s certainly notable that the wealthiest man on Earth and the CEO of the world’s largest satellite company, is advocating for space-based SRM. Experts warn, however, that this strategy is both highly unrealistic and dangerous.

    Is SpaceX eyeing a new orbital venture?

    Musk isn’t the only entrepreneur interested in blocking out the Sun. A growing number of companies are exploring different approaches to SRM, from using atmospheric aerosols to mimic the sunlight-blocking effects of volcanic eruptions to launching thousands of mirrors into orbit.

    While some of these companies have raised significant capital and have set ambitious near-term targets for development and testing, none are anywhere close to deploying their technology at scale. If Musk’s SpaceX wades into this burgeoning industry, these startups will suddenly find a very big fish in their very small pond.

    But to be clear, Musk has not shared any plans for SpaceX to develop SRM-capable satellites. And even with the company’s billion-dollar valuation and the enormous Starlink constellation it has already deployed, doing so would be far easier said than done.

    Could Musk actually do it?

    The first hurdle SpaceX would face is a pivot away from producing Starlink communications satellites to developing the artificially intelligent, solar-powered, SRM-capable satellites Musk described. And no, the nearly 9,000 operational Starlinks currently in orbit could not be adapted for this purpose. Alternatively, SpaceX could launch an entirely new satellite division devoted to this geoengineering project while simultaneously managing Starlink.

    While Musk did not share specifics on how these satellites would work, they would likely be equipped with mirrors or sunshades that come together in formation to create a gigantic, manipulatable barrier between Earth and the Sun. When we say gigantic—we really mean it.

    Scientists don’t know exactly how many SRM satellites it would take to make a meaningful difference in Earth’s average temperature, but estimates range so high that many experts consider this solution infeasible. The cost of deployment alone would likely prove insurmountable even for Musk, with estimates in the multi-trillion-dollar range.

    Even if Musk could make this happen, that doesn’t mean he should. Experts have long warned of the potential consequences of space-based SRM, which could trigger major, unintended changes in Earth’s climate, the day-night cycle, biodiversity, geopolitical tensions, and more.

    Avoiding these consequences—and actually mitigating global warming—would require unprecedented technological control and international governance over the largest and most impactful satellite constellation ever deployed.

    Needless to say, it’s not happening anytime soon. Still, Musk’s growing interest in this technology will undoubtedly attract attention to this nascent industry, potentially fueling innovation and debate over how geoengineering can and should go.

    [ad_2]

    Ellyn Lapointe

    Source link

  • The DOGE Subcommittee Hearing on Weather Modification Was a Nest of Conspiracy Theorizing

    [ad_1]

    The popularity of these conspiracies may also be on the rise in right-wing spaces. Some MAHA figureheads, including Nicole Shanahan, have shared geoengineering content promoting conspiracy theories, while Marla Maples, Donald Trump’s ex-wife, told Fox News in July that she helped Florida’s anti-weather modification bill pass. (Bill Gates’ track record of funding solar geoengineering research has undoubtedly helped fan some of these flames.)

    Doricko, the Rainmaker CEO, has spent much of the past year testifying in state legislatures that were considering vague anti-geoengineering bills that would have also banned cloud seeding. In May, he told WIRED that he and his team had spoken in front of 31 state legislatures. Education, he says, is key to getting people on board with the technology.

    “I think there’s some cohort of people that believe that, you know, Joe Biden is actually a lizard person,” he says. “I think that a lot of people aren’t quite that far along, but are very concerned about chemtrails, probably. Showing them farms that are greener than they otherwise would have been with testimonies from those farmers—that’s probably the way that we’re gonna win hearts and minds.” (Doricko told WIRED last week that in recent months, his company has had “interest, curiosity, and excitement” from various state governments, both Democratic and Republican, in using cloud seeding to enhance water supply. “The education that we had the opportunity to do ultimately I think assuaged a lot of reasonable people’s concerns.”)

    There is one additional type of human-caused shift in the world’s weather that played an outsize role in the hearing: climate change. Greene and other Republican lawmakers repeated many climate denial talking points and bad framing around climate science, including the idea that carbon dioxide is good for the planet because it is plant food. There were multiple mentions of beach houses owned by Barack Obama and Al Gore as a way of illustrating supposed hypocrisy about sea level rise. One of the witnesses called by the House majority works at an organization with a long history of questioning established climate science; he claimed in his testimony that there is “uncertainty as to exactly how much influence humans have exerted” over the global rise in temperature—a take that is out of line with mainstream science.

    “My view is that this is mainly a way of saying there are secret forces at work that are making your life miserable, and everything bad is due to these secret forces,” says Dessler. “When in reality, it’s not secret forces, it’s climate change and it’s these other things that are hurting people.”

    But even a whole hearing dedicated to a conspiracy theory grab bag may not be enough for some. On X, a popular anti-geoengineering community was alight with posts about the hearing—including many critical of the experts and their findings. “This was a scripted show to protect the government’s weather control agenda,” one moderator’s post reads. “Why no independent voices?”

    [ad_2]

    Molly Taft

    Source link

  • These Climate Hacks to Save the Poles Could Totally Backfire

    [ad_1]

    Last year, the United Nations predicted that Earth’s average temperature could rise more than 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) by 2100 if we don’t reduce global emissions. That level of warming would cause catastrophic, irreversible damage to ecosystems, underscoring the urgent need to slow the pace of climate change.

    Still, the amount of greenhouse gases humans pump into the atmosphere continues to rise. Without sufficient progress on the emissions front, some scientists have suggested another route: artificially counteracting global warming through geoengineering. Many of these controversial solutions aim to mitigate climate breakdown in the polar regions, but a review published Tuesday in Frontiers in Science concludes that even the most widely recognized proposals are likely to cause more harm than good.

    “I find that there’s been confusion between urgency and haste,” co-author Ben Orlove, a professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University, told Gizmodo. “Though we recognize the urgency of action, that should never serve as an excuse for incompletely reviewed proposals moving forward.”

    Polar regions under pressure

    Earth’s polar regions are warming faster than the average global temperature. Experts predict this will lead to severe and irreversible consequences both regionally and globally, such as local ecosystem collapse and sea level rise. Proponents of geoengineering often cite this as a driving force behind efforts to implement such strategies in the Arctic and Antarctic, but none of them are backed by robust, real-world testing at scale.

    For this review, an international team of researchers evaluated five geoengineering concepts designed to slow the pace of ice melt in the polar regions. The ideas include spraying reflective particles into the atmosphere, using giant underwater curtains to shield ice shelves from warm water, artificially thickening or boosting the reflectivity of sea ice, pumping water out from underneath glaciers, and adding nutrients to polar oceans to stimulate blooms of carbon-sequestering phytoplankton.

    More problems than solutions

    The researchers evaluated each proposed solution’s scope of implementation, effectiveness, feasibility, negative consequences, cost, and governance with respect to their deployment at scale. According to their assessment, all five ideas would lead to environmental damages such as the disruption of habitats, migration routes, the ocean’s natural chemical cycle, global climate patterns, and more.

    Additionally, the authors estimate that each proposal would cost at least $10 billion to implement and maintain. This is likely an underestimate, they say, pointing to hidden costs that would undoubtedly arise as environmental and logistical consequences come into play. What’s more, polar regions lack sufficient governance to regulate these projects, necessitating extensive political negotiation and new frameworks before large-scale deployment.

    Even if these tactics offered some benefit, none could scale fast enough to meaningfully address the climate crisis within the limited time available to do so, the researchers concluded.

    “It is clear to us that the assessed approaches are not feasible, and that further research into these techniques would not be an effective use of limited time and resources,” the authors write, emphasizing the importance of focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conducting fundamental research in the polar regions.

    Not every fix is worth the risk

    Orlove hopes these findings encourage the scientific community and decision-makers to exercise scrutiny before investing time and money in polar geoengineering projects. “One of the things that troubles me is the claim that climate change is so severe that we need to try all possible methods, and blocking any possible solution is an error,” he said.

    “There is a long history in medical research of not undertaking certain experiments on living humans and not attempting extreme cures that just seem unethical,” Orlove said. “But when it comes to experimenting on the planet—and its immediate effect on people—that kind of awareness doesn’t come forward.”

    [ad_2]

    Ellyn Lapointe

    Source link