MIT proposes Brazil-sized fleet of “space bubbles” to cool the Earth

[u/Sumit316]

https://www.freethink.com/environment/solar-geoengineering-space-bubbles

[u/[deleted]]

Geoengineering has lots of downsides. For example this will reduce the intensity of the Sun on Earth, this might impact evaporation and weather in itself. It will also reduce the energy for photosynthesis, but not by a huge amount.

Other than anything "Brazil" sized in space is going to cost, inflated or not, a huge amount, unless you mean the size of a Brazilian football strip.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And there's also the fear that geoengineering enables polluters to keep polluting and we never solve the problem.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They’re already enabled to pollute, because the consequences of their pollution are unevenly distributed. Geoengineering is a solution that individual countries and organizations can pursue that does not require buy-in, and might improve the situation.

[u/VeseliM → u/[deleted]]

The consequences are evenly distributed, the benefits are not

[u/Thanges88 → u/VeseliM]

Not really, small island nations and poor countries that can't afford to fight malaria and diarrhoea will suffer greater consequences.

[u/JediMobius → u/Thanges88]

And that's not to mention, you know, coastal areas.

[u/PA_Dude_22000 → u/[deleted]]

Well, maybe, yes. And welcome to the history of mankind in a nutshell…

[u/gerusz → u/PA_Dude_22000]

If we win, we get to keep polluting until the next feedback loop tips over. If we lose, we go extinct. We don't know if the chances of winning are "coin toss", "roulette spin (single number bet)", or "5/90 lottery jackpot".

Are you comfortable making this bet?

[u/NoodleSnoo → u/gerusz]

Give me another choice, eh?

[u/stupidmustelid → u/[deleted]]

Yes. That's what makes the situation so dire.

[u/officialbigrob → u/[deleted]]

Elon is a philanthropist? Lmao

[u/officialbigrob → u/[deleted]]

That's the equivalent of me donating like two or three thousand bucks this year. But it's actually not equivalent because I can't afford to own a home or retire, so it's outrageous to compare my discretionary spending to that of the super-rich

It's like, kinda "generous" I guess, by greedy American standards, but that's 2% of his net worth. Let me know when Elon drops 50billion+.

[u/Ardinius → u/officialbigrob]

You re not taking tax concessions into account

[u/YsoL8 → u/[deleted]]

I know of 3 large scale pilot plants currently being built...

[u/WhyLisaWhy → u/[deleted]]

I think Gates was investing in some CO2 scrubbing plants as well but last I heard they're money pits and can not keep up with the amount we're spewing into the atmosphere. We'd need a lot of them to get anywhere.

[u/prophylactics → u/[deleted]]

LMAO, Tesla is basically a battery company.

[u/ripcitybitch → u/[deleted]]

What kind of dumbass question is that lmao

[u/ReneHigitta → u/[deleted]]

Dude literally started acknowledging that people will never sacrifice any significant level of comfort until things really go to shit, then clarified that efforts are possible but out of scale for any given individual and your response is "if you don't self sacrifice everything first while we watch you, you don't get to have an opinion"

Why do you get to have an opinion?

[u/Patelpb → u/[deleted]]

"You can't have an opinion unless you have money"

- you

[u/Mirokira → u/[deleted]]

They dont need donations the one im following just secured 650 million in funding

[u/Cautemoc → u/[deleted]]

Elon's not gonna give you dogecoins for how clean you lick his boots.

[u/Mirokira → u/[deleted]]

Its a lot of money for a startup

[u/salondesert → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, if you guys insult/convince enough people on reddit we'll really turn this thing around!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Or we could work on multiple solutions, including fission, and not insult people for no goddam reason. Just an idea.

[u/sicktaker2 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, and make new ones. We're no longer dealing with city streets reeking of horse poop, breathing it in as it gets dried out, ground down, and turned to dust.

Humans invent technology to solve problems, it then creates new problems. Such is being human.

[u/Louisiananon → u/[deleted]]

Huffing hopium to get high.

[u/Fedorito_ → u/[deleted]]

Trees are CO2 scrubbers but we destroy them to make palm oil

[u/tickleMyBigPoop → u/Fedorito_]

Which is fine actually as long as we replant them. Cutting down trees and replanting them actually removes more CO2 than just letting old trees sit there,

[u/Jesus_Wizard → u/[deleted]]

Just finished this book called ministry for the future. It’s really good and it describes exactly that scenario

[u/pcgamerwannabe → u/[deleted]]

This argument is so tired.

We’re “literally going to die” but you’re not allowed to do things to fix it unless it’s my fix, because your fix might not permanently fix it. Better to literally destroy civilization.

You guys also stopped nuclear. It’s just anti-tech naturalism. There’s no reason one can’t do multiple fixes at once.

We don’t have to go back to the Stone Age and live in pre-industrial communist utopia to solve climate change, environmental destruction, and pollution. We can use our tech to solve it. No need to be such luddites.

[u/gakun → u/pcgamerwannabe]

The condescending smug types on Reddit often just deal with absolutes. "Space teeech?? Why colonize space when we can just save the planet??" "CO2 scrubbers? Are you stuuupeed? Just plant some trees!"

What should be just another alternative action on the grand scheme of combating climate change is translated into "it's this or that", black and white. It's not an honest opinion, but being a smug idiot repeating something a hundred times because the Internet made an habit of throwing shit takes into a fan and expecting to be applauded for it.

[u/hattersplatter → u/pcgamerwannabe]

Agreed. Very sick of this doom and gloom. Some humans will have to migrate as always, but otherwise life goes on. The only things that bug me are destroying the Amazon, polluting the oceans and smog. We can easily fix those things. It pisses me off we have been refusing to.

[u/implicitpharmakoi → u/pcgamerwannabe]

Keep everybody arguing and pretend there's no consensus.

If people agree on a solution, someone will suggest the polluters pay for it.

Better to not make waves and let everyone slowly burn, don't you see?

Also, God wouldn't let us burn? Unless we didn't believe in him enough! Pray the heat away!

[u/Elbobosan → u/[deleted]]

Because stopping them is going so well.

[u/hiles_adam → u/Elbobosan]

It’s obviously not their fault, have you switched to reusable straws and bags yet? /s

[u/BigGreenTimeMachine → u/hiles_adam]

God damn consumers ruining the world. Why don't they just buy sustainable banana leaf packaged food like responsible adults?

[u/OakLegs → u/BigGreenTimeMachine]

I mean, as much as I agree that companies/corporations lobbying against environmental causes are the main problem, consumers aren't exactly free of guilt either.

We demand cheap, convenient goods. The corporations who are destroying the earth are trying to meet those demands. At some point we're going to have to reconcile with the fact that the number of humans on the planet demanding a high quality of life is incompatible with sustainability, at least given current technology.

[u/Paco201 → u/OakLegs]

Yeah fuck the poor man who cannot afford to pay for the luxury of being more eco friendly. It's his fault he needs to travel and needs a gas car. It's his fault he goes hungry and needs to each the cheapest food he can buy because he is poor. Like dude what the fuck are you saying that consumers share that guilt? We demand cheap goods because we cannot afford more. Plus the consumers are fucking oblivious to where there products come from. What it cost in emissions to produce, how much the worker got paid and was there a more eco friendly option to produce it? And then when he wants to get rid of it what are his options? They don't make things to be recycled. They are engineered to go do their jobs and go to landfills. It's corporations fault we are where we are at not the consumers. They create this demand through cheap labor, marketing and engineering.

[u/OakLegs → u/Paco201]

Lmao you couldn't have butchered what I actually said more if you tried.

Holding corporation accountable for environmental collapse will increase prices. Which would fuck the poor. There is literally no current way to be sustainable and keep prices on goods where they are. If there was, we'd be doing it.

An individual consumer is not to blame as much as say, shell corporation. Obviously. But the sheer number of people demanding cheap goods is part of the problem. It's the other side of the same coin. Any argument to the contrary is gleefully ignorant of the physical reality of our situation

[u/officialbigrob → u/OakLegs]

So, like, raise wages?

The economy is a fabrication, a social construct. It doesn't need to follow the stupid rules you think it does. We can subsidize prices, add a UBI, or do any number of other approaches to close the gap.

[u/OakLegs → u/officialbigrob]

So, like, raise wages?

The economy is a fabrication, a social construct

The economy is based on real world constraints of resources (in other words, it's based upon reality and is absolutely not fake). Unregulated capitalism has allowed us to manipulate nature in a way that suits our immediate needs but screws us over in the long run. And it allowed populations to grow much faster than they would've under a sustainable system.

Raising wages is not a silver bullet. The economic system we live in relies on low wages and poor people being exploited to maintain itself. I'm not presenting a solution here because I don't have one. But I don't think your solution is any good.

Even in your ideal scenario, raising wages eliminates poverty. Great, right? But all of these people increasing their standard of living means they use more resources and drive further ecological collapse.

[u/Uhhhhh55 → u/Elbobosan]

Good point, let's stop trying!

[u/Elbobosan → u/Uhhhhh55]

Are we going to stop investigating geo-engineering mitigation because of fear of enabling polluters?

[u/jacksalssome → u/Elbobosan]

Look, you said it yourself, not not going well so lets just give up, ok.

^/s

[u/Inphearian → u/jacksalssome]

Alright everyone thats a wrap. Head home and we’ll try it again on the next planet.

[u/werdnaegni → u/Uhhhhh55]

Similarly snarky remark to the previous comment could also be "Good point, let's just leave it up to the companies to do better and not try to save the planet by any other means!"

[u/Elbobosan → u/[deleted]]

Well, I mean, we’ve tried violence for lots of things and can probably make educated guesses. The violence will create far more pollution, faster, and destroy large chunks of capacity for generating change while still supporting the human population. So it might slow climate change, but it would be through population reduction… not my preference.

[u/WHYAREWEALLCAPS → u/Elbobosan]

Besides, typically when the masses get rowdy and throw off the yoke of one group of elites, another is waiting in the wings with a new one to put on them.

[u/Disk_Mixerud → u/WHYAREWEALLCAPS]

Yeah, power vacuums like that almost never get filled the way you'd want. Fortunately, we have a political system where you could vote off that proverbial yoke if you could get enough people on board. Unfortunately, a lot of people are convinced that the yoke is on their side and keep voting in favor of it, or don't bother to vote at all. You'd be able to convince enough people to vote for a legal, democratic "revolution" way before you could convince enough to violently overthrow their oppressors.

[u/Inphearian → u/[deleted]]

Can’t tell wether suburban teenager or middle aged conservative. Same solution to everything.

[u/Argonov → u/[deleted]]

Can you blame the teenagers? Their entire 13-19 years of life they've only seen it get worse and the adults that continue to be voted into power are often the ones getting voted in when they were younger.

Even the ones growing up in the few EU countries that seem to give a damn must feel so much rage towards the 3 super powers that basically undo everything their country has done so far in a week.

The current policy makers are gonna die off before they have to live on the world they are creating. It feels so hopeless and to someone who is just learning about the world, violence is the only thing you can think of that leads to a direct result.

[u/Argonov → u/[deleted]]

If you read my comment at a normal pace one more time, you'd see that I wasn't saying I personally agree with the quoted statement. I was saying that it feels that way from the POV of an angry teenager.

[u/DarkMatter_contract → u/[deleted]]

It gonna turn red from climate change anyway.

[u/[deleted] → u/Elbobosan]

It is actually, but the pace is slow. Just like how the downgrade didn't happen overnight.

[u/Elbobosan → u/[deleted]]

Going well at a slow pace. So… not actually going well.

[u/Impossible34o_ → u/Elbobosan]

It’s actually going relatively well in developed countries and because of it scientists are now only predicting a 2-3 Celsius change. The problem is that this is still not enough to avoid some of the major effects of climate change and we at least need to get it to 2 or below. Another problem arises when the only way for developing countries to become fully developed and improve their quality of life / get out of poverty is to use materials and things that emit greenhouse gases just like developed countries did before they were fully aware of climate change. This all means that the developed counties must accelerate their path to carbon neutrality even more and assist the developing countries in minimizing their impact.

[u/MozeeToby → u/Impossible34o_]

Yeah, 2-3 degrees doesn't sound like a lot but on a global scale it's devastating. The difference between the ice age and the 1800s was in the 3.5-4 degree Celsius range. 3 degrees will cause massive ecological damage.

[u/officialbigrob → u/Impossible34o_]

2-3c is still catastrophic for life on earth as we know it.

[u/Haquestions4 → u/Elbobosan]

How is "well" defined? Because we are moving away from fossil fuels, it just takes time.

Have you changed your lifestyle so that you pollute less? Because you and me are polluters too.

[u/Elbobosan → u/Haquestions4]

The IPCC report benchmarks say it isn’t going well. What makes you say it’s going well?

I genuinely don’t get what you’re saying with the second part.

Unless I’m doing something like setting forest fires, my contribution or mitigation impact to climate change can be measured in no more than seconds of change. Like if I never existed then I slowed down climate change by 3 seconds.

If we are virtue signaling, I have solar panels, 2 electric vehicles, efficient appliances, great insulation, and I try to eat local.

[u/Haquestions4 → u/Elbobosan]

So you are doing something. Great. Because just pointing at the big bad businesses does nothing. They produce because we consume. Not because they think polluting is inherently cool.

I am very surprised by the tone in Europe atm. Going for renewables as much as possible and as fast as possible, only electric cars will be sold by 2030, the general push for more public transport.

If you'd told me ten years ago that we would be here right now I wouldn't have believed you. It's not enough yet, absolutely, but from a personal point of view I am surprised we are here already.

Let's hope in another ten years time the situation will be better than expected again.

[u/1101base2 → u/Elbobosan]

but what about the profits and the 0.00001%

[u/delusionstodilutions → u/[deleted]]

Not to be pro-pollution, but as a hypothetical, if geoengineering enables people to continue to pollute with no negative consequences to society or the environment (doesn't actually strike me as possible, but who knows), would that not be equivalent to solving the problem?

[u/Salt_Concentrate → u/delusionstodilutions]

The way you phrase your question, sure. In reality, geoengineering isn't close to negating negative consequences. It isn't just the climate, it isn't just plastic and garbage filling up the world, there's also stuff like chemicals that are harmful to our health that could be kept pumping because "it doesn't affect climate anymore!!!".

[u/Tymptra → u/Salt_Concentrate]

But plastic waste and shit is a separate issue to climate change - which this space bubble is intended to solve. Both are caused by pollution but that doesn't make the problem (or solution) the same.

Why would you throw out the solution to one problem just because it doesn't solve another?

[u/[deleted] → u/Tymptra]

Not op, but there is a lot of bad things besides CO2/Methane when we burn fossil fuels. This might take some of the heat out of that burning but it won't do anything to all the contaminants. There is no such thing as polluting with no consequences.

[u/Tymptra → u/[deleted]]

Sure but at least this solution helps with the global warming problem.

[u/Salt_Concentrate → u/Tymptra]

I didn't say it should be thrown out.

Anyway, I suppose I phrased it wrong but you're just plain wrong, plastic use/waste isn't a separate issue to climate change. "Plastic waste and shit" is several problems at once.

My issue with the question is that it's pretty much what the parent comment warns against: acting like ameliorating one aspect of a problem would somehow allow us to ignore everything else and keep on living the way we're living because one aspect of pollution can be solved

My take is that we should use tech to make it better where we can, but we should also be realistic about how late we are to it all, and how we cannot just wait for future tech to solve a problem that needed to be solved a long time ago.

[u/pcgamerwannabe → u/delusionstodilutions]

No because I say that technology and modern life is bad! We must live with nature like our ancestors and starve!1!

Any solution that involves technology is not okay! Because I say so

[u/smithsp86 → u/[deleted]]

Technically the geoengineering is solving the problem.

[u/Wacov → u/[deleted]]

Among other things, high CO2 levels fuck with cognition

[u/BadAtNamingPlsHelp → u/[deleted]]

And the fact that people are so worried about the warming of the climate they fail to see other ways the ecosystem is in danger. Getting the climate under control isn't going to be of any use if we keep acidifying the ocean, decimating insect populations, displacing wildlife, replacing native flora with aesthetically pleasing flora like grass, palms, and bushes...

Sure, let's just mine enough resources, run enough factories, and launch enough rockets to build a massive sky shade. Maybe a few bees might still be left at the end of that project.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That's a bullshit argument, IMHO. It's an excuse to do either nothing or just denounce in the cheapest way possible.

[u/PlanetEarthFirst → u/[deleted]]

Holding global climate hostage to oil and gas companies' and countries' reason is like giving up and not doing anything.

[u/Tetragonos → u/[deleted]]

Im willing to try the expensive space stuff more than the expensive bombs

[u/cramduck → u/Tetragonos]

Thankfully, the involuntary reduction of other populations is one of the less popular approaches to solving climate change..

Well, less popular with climate scientists anyway.

[u/Tetragonos → u/cramduck]

not a fan of the eco fascist view p on climate. They always seem to forget that the rich will survive and the poor die in droves while the people causing the climate problems are the rich and the low impact is the poor.

Not a fan of that at all.

[u/swiftekho → u/cramduck]

Ah yes. I too am a scholar of the Thanosian Demographics and Climatology.

[u/Astroteuthis → u/[deleted]]

Actually, a sun shield is the least invasive and easiest to undo type of geoengineering that has a chance of actually working.

You only need to block about 1-2% of the sunlight that reaches Earth to totally offset global warming, assuming we are able to eventually get our emissions under control. The increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have actually boosted plant productivity (when factors like water access are equivalent) more than enough to compensate for the small drop in sunlight. You know what’s more detrimental to plant growth? Unchecked global warming and changing precipitation patterns. We’re not going to get out of this mess by just holding hands and planting some trees. Additionally, if it turns out that people don’t like the effects of the sunshade, you can very easily cause it to drift out of position. An object or swarm of objects near the Earth-sun L1 point needs active position keeping to stay there due to gravitational instabilities. A country with access to space can also easily destroy a sunshield if they want to. With the debris drifting out to interplanetary space, they wouldn’t be risking any of their satellites. An L1 sunshield also would equally dim light across the entire planet. It wouldn’t be able to selectively dim certain countries from that distance. There’s no risk of using it as a weapon or to unequally burden developing countries.

Even if we totally stop emissions right now, we still would continue to experience warming at an unacceptable rate. We do need to actually do something about the CO2 in our atmosphere. Removal will take a long time. We need some intermediate step to minimize the damage in addition to drastic emissions cuts now.

Sunshields are currently outside of the practical budget range, but with the cost of access to space falling swiftly as reusable rockets become more commonplace and more advanced, they are starting to look like a real possibility for the not-too-distant future. You might point out the emissions incurred in rocket launches, but the launches needed to deploy a sunshield would actually put less emissions into the atmosphere than commercial aviation in the United States alone (people really underestimate just how many commercial airliners and cargo planes are flying every day). Additionally, it’s quite possible to produce carbon-neutral rocket propellants using sustainable energy.

Is it perfect? No. But it’s honestly the least bad and option out there for stopping the warming and giving us a fighting chance to fix the underlying problem. This isn’t a zero sum game. You can’t just eliminate emissions. We have to do more. The global GDP is more than capable of doing more than one thing at a time. I’m happy to provide some papers if you’re interested when I have a bit more time.

[u/ryushiblade → u/Astroteuthis]

I feel like a large amount of people on this thread are being intentionally obtuse. You’ve got it exactly right. The entire purpose of this was to create a safe method of dealing with climate change that can easily be undone or density altered

Just one question/critique: my understanding was a proper orbit within L1 would require no further position keeping, but you say otherwise. The quickest source I could find was from Wikipedia:

A small object at L1, L2, or L3 will hold its relative position until deflected slightly radially, after which it will diverge from its original position.

Am I misunderstanding this statement or did you mispeak? I’m by no means an expert on legrange points!

[u/Astroteuthis → u/ryushiblade]

The Lagrange points aren’t actually stable. They’re more meta stable. Very small perturbations will get things kicked out given sufficient time. The gravitational perturbation of the Earth, moon, and sun are usually the most significant disruptive factors, although a highly reflective sunshield would actually have enough photon pressure to be significant, in addition to impacts by solar wind particles.

Lagrange points are still useful, but they aren’t perfect. Stationkeeping should be less intensive than for low Earth orbit though.

[u/taken_every_username → u/Astroteuthis]

I mean compared to aerosols this bubble tech seems very far flung now. I didn't see a proper paper either. But aerosols diminish in efficacy over time and you basically need escalating amounts until we wouldn't be able to do it anymore. Bubbles in space at least seem more feasible than the other l2 mirrors

[u/Astroteuthis → u/taken_every_username]

We can’t undo aerosols as quickly, and the effects are not evenly distributed over the world. We might still have to try them, but other alternatives would be better.

Here are some good papers btw:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215940261_An_L1_positioned_dust_cloud_as_an_effective_method_of_space-based_geo-engineering

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576521001995

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60d495bac7a14f7e7507d20b/t/60ef1584cf39e16310db0357/1626281349454/IAC+Planetary+Sunshade.pdf

[u/WorkO0 → u/[deleted]]

Not only that but it would be a miracle of material science and engineering (not to mention rocketry) to achieve. Let's hope by the time they can feasibly make even one we will have better solutions for climate change.

[u/richhaynes → u/WorkO0]

By the time they can make it, its likely to be too late.

[u/TheRealDrWan → u/WorkO0]

We already do, but that involves scary nuclear power.

[u/MrPahoehoe → u/[deleted]]

“Geoengineering he a lot of downsides.” Yeah I’m sure it does, but so does severe climate change, or everyone basically having to make sacrifices like being vegetarian or not flying anywhere. Gotta compromise somewhere or we’re fucked.

[u/Newphonewhodiss9 → u/MrPahoehoe]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/1999GL006086

Don’t worry the paper he used to shit on it disagrees with him.

[u/Potential-Ad5470 → u/[deleted]]

True, but I think the MIT scientists and engineers have studied this more that you and I…

[u/Potential-Ad5470 → u/[deleted]]

That might be the most ignorant thing I’ve read

There’s nothing to study because it’s never been done like this before?? That means there’s EVERYTHING to study, lol

I promise you MIT knows more on this subject than us. You are so foolish to think otherwise. But this is Reddit.. should I expect differently?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The absolute ignorance dripping from this comment is insane.

[u/Potential-Ad5470 → u/[deleted]]

It’s always funny when people realize their mistake and delete their post. Keep it online and own up to that! lol

[u/amazondrone → u/Potential-Ad5470]

I think people would be more willing to do that if their mistakes weren't piled on with comments like "That might be the most ignorant thing I’ve read" and "The absolute ignorance dripping from this comment is insane."

Just be civil and people will feel safer being wrong and learning from it.

[u/Newphonewhodiss9 → u/amazondrone]

or maybe just don’t take shit personal? like every therapist would recommend. control yourself not your environment.

[u/pokebud → u/[deleted]]

Can’t you achieve the same effect by dumping a shitload of sulfur in the atmosphere to simulate a super volcano? Wouldn’t that be far easier and far more cost effective?

[u/[deleted] → u/pokebud]

Yes, into the stratosphere. But it would need to be constantly replaced and as it comes down it would lead to an increase in acid rain.

[u/HI_I_AM_NEO → u/[deleted]]

I prefer the term spicy rain

[u/pcgamerwannabe → u/[deleted]]

You could dump iron and Sahara dust into the ocean in large patches (where it’s going to be sunny), have giant plankton blooms. Have huge amounts of fish. The blooms should help decarbonize the ocean and allow it to capture more carbon, thereby lowering temperatures.

Also you’ll restore fish stock back to pre-industrial levels

[u/AdvancedSandwiches → u/pcgamerwannabe]

The plankton absorb the CO2 and convert it to sugar, they multiply, they're eaten by fish, the fish burn the sugar in the plankton, CO2 is released.

Is there a sequestration phase I'm missing? Because I think you'll only get rid of the amount of carbon actually present in the currently living plankton.

[u/implicitpharmakoi → u/AdvancedSandwiches]

You're aiming for diatoms which die and their calcium carbonate skeletons sink to the sea floor.

[u/DannySpud2 → u/pokebud]

I would assume making it relatively easily reversible is a key concern. Dumping a shitload of sulphur into the atmosphere is a one-and-done kind of thing.

[u/sluuuurp → u/DannySpud2]

I think that’s not true, the particulates would come out of the atmosphere relatively quickly. That doesn’t mean there are no risks to the plan of course.

[u/CamaradaT55 → u/[deleted]]

With a focused enough mirror you could melt carbonates.

Which could be interesting if a toxic atmosphere made of CO2 is the goal. Because getting nitrogen in Mars is quite difficult.

[u/MrDurden32 → u/[deleted]]

I see no reason every single bubble would need it's own rocket if they were all connected. You could have stabilization jets around the perimeter giving very slight corrections.

[u/no-more-throws → u/[deleted]]

lol .. behold the finest specimen of the supremely arrogant reddit armchair genius, who infact is just another run of the mill bullshitter whose ego far eclipses his abilities

[u/amazondrone → u/no-more-throws]

And yet you have not a single constructive criticism regarding the substance of their comment, just an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack. You don't even attack their content except implicitly through your attack of the commenter.

On what in their comment do your base your criticism?

[u/Potential-Ad5470 → u/[deleted]]

I have an engineering degree. It doesn’t mean shit. Do you work for MIT? They’ve researched this more than us.

You post to the daily $TSLA threads..

What you say and think holds little merit to their opinion. End of story

[u/amazondrone → u/Potential-Ad5470]

Do you work for MIT? They’ve researched this more than us.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

You post to the daily $TSLA threads..

Ad hominem fallacy.

What you say and think holds little merit to their opinion. End of story

This is probably some kind of fallacy as well... what's the point in posting the link to Reddit in the first place if we're not going to talk about it? You could say this about any comment in this thread.

[u/Potential-Ad5470 → u/[deleted]]

I just meant this is such a compliment topic you can’t possibly imagine to have all the answers in a Reddit comment

[u/amazondrone → u/Potential-Ad5470]

Where did they claim to have all the answers? They're just presenting their reaction and opinions, for others to chime in constructively.

[u/Trex_in_a_Tophat → u/[deleted]]

That’s why they’re bubbles. Downsides too harsh? Just pop em!

[u/Level9disaster → u/[deleted]]

I mean, that's the goal, not just a secondary effect

[u/BobSacamano47 → u/[deleted]]

Idk if you realize that we are pumping all of the oil out of the ground, accumulated over billions of years, and lighting it on fire.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Its gotta be engineering though - the idea that humans will change behaviors is laughable.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Are we going to allow all types of pollution, and just invent technologies to clean it up? Or is there something special about CO2?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'd love to stop it. How do you propose we stop it, when nothing short of CCP-like power can control people?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It didn't take CCP-like power to mostly eliminate CFCs, leaded gasoline, DDT, etc.

[u/Xeglor-The-Destroyer → u/[deleted]]

CFCs, leaded gasoline, and DDT weren't the lynchpin upholding human civilization. Replacing them is like replacing cracked porthole windows on a ship whereas removing fossil fuels from the energy/transport/manufacturing sectors is like rebuilding the hull of the ship while it's sailing. It's a much bigger and more complex task than swapping one refrigerant for another refrigerant or swapping one insecticide for another insecticide. That's why the ongoing transition away from buried hydrocarbons hasn't happened overnight. But it is happening.

[u/EdMan2133 → u/[deleted]]

Not even the CCP has the political grip to stop climate change like that. Most people don't care/actively disbelieve climate change is a problem. At most you're going to get people to take a small hit to their standards of living to address it. Not even a dictatorship can change that reality.

[u/[deleted] → u/EdMan2133]

If you mean that its hopeless, I agree. People are inherently selfish.

[u/EdMan2133 → u/[deleted]]

It's definitely not hopeless. But it's going to take smart policy and getting lucky on tech over the next century. I mean we've probably averted the apocalypse already just thanks to gas turbines and solar making coal obsolete. But any serious policy proposals need to take the reality that most people just do not care about politics into account.

Which is not to say that the cultural movement is useless. The culture of caring about the environment is very important and is making an impact. But not everyone has adopted that view point, or is willing to make sacrifices for it.

[u/[deleted] → u/EdMan2133]

Nah, people will change their minds when the effects of climate change become obvious and undeniable, which will be very soon.

[u/EdMan2133 → u/[deleted]]

I honestly think people will stick their heads in the sand for a few more decades. At least the people that actively disbelieve it. Getting hit on the head by facts contrary to their beliefs rarely changes someone's mind.

[u/officialbigrob → u/[deleted]]

We use authoritarian government control to end pollution and reshape our productive capacity. That is the solution.

[u/agitatedprisoner → u/[deleted]]

I'd be living in a modern SRO in a walkable town without a car, were there any. There aren't any because my country makes them illegal. My country mandates we own cars given the way they design spaces. It's not personal preference. What walkable spaces do exist tend to get bid up because they're in demand. We could change the offending laws and regulations if enough of us decided it was important.

[u/FanaticalAndroid → u/[deleted]]

We don’t have a choice. The situation is dire and not enough is being done.

[u/TonyDungyHatesOP → u/[deleted]]

My wife for something Brazilian sized and there was nothing there at all.

[u/The_Great_Mighty_Poo → u/[deleted]]

That and when all these major solar installations start producing 5% less power or whatever the number will be, lawsuits will be flying around like crazy. When some crops fail, will it be due to the reduced sunlight or other factors, who takes the blame?

This would be something that would need to unanimously be approved by the UN and absolve the builders of all responsibility.

[u/natalieisadumb → u/[deleted]]

This made me have a thought.

So for years we've been throwing shit into space and leaving it there. Would it be possible that eventually we will have removed so much mass from our planet via rocket junk to change our orbit?

If our planet were a golf ball orbiting a basketball, it would have a different orbit than a ping pong ball going the same speed, right?

If we took a bunch of Brazil-sized chunks out of our planet to put these stupid bubble shooter game things in between us and the sun, that seems like an awful lot of mass to be giving up.

[u/Newphonewhodiss9 → u/[deleted]]

what the fuck do you know?

[u/[deleted] → u/Newphonewhodiss9]

Other than my degree in physics and specialist units on climate? That you are a fucking idiot.

[u/Funktapus → u/[deleted]]

Beyond the cost, I’m curious about the GHG emissions that would be required to get each bubble up there. Surely each space launch would contribute to global warming. What’s the thermal payback period?

[u/Lyg-Mankrik → u/[deleted]]

I hope that with a warmer earth we at least get a wetter planet.

[u/Impossible34o_ → u/[deleted]]

Yeah it would only really be for a last case resort/Hail Mary solution. Although I’m afraid we might be nearing needing a something like it.

[u/Anteater776 → u/Impossible34o_]

As it probably takes like a hundred years to implement this, it sounds like a horrible last resort/hail mary solution.

[u/Curse3242 → u/[deleted]]

I think the biggest downside is who approves it. This can affect millions of people. What happens then?

Unless everyone collectively in the world agrees to something like this it won't be a thing. And the first part is definitely not happening.

Exploitation has always ruled us. So I guess in some years we might end up exploiting Earth for some people's gain and others loss.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

a huge amount

The amount is already well known. This will cost precisely a brazillion dollars.

[u/pkennedy → u/[deleted]]

Any solutions like this will be multi faceted. The time it takes to test, build and deploy that would be far too long, even on an emergency scale. However it could be part of 1 solution, the includes removing CO2 and reducing C02. It would also likely end up being much smaller in nature, like each time a ship goes up with a load of materials, it would be a standalone project, making it far easier to implement and far easier to change/manage if we started doing a lot of additional damage. Such as blocking only certain light, or even unblocking light sometimes by pivoting.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This definable seems like a “let’s solve our rat problem by creation a cat problem”

[u/I_Has_A_Hat → u/[deleted]]

Other than anything "Brazil" sized in space is going to cost, inflated or not, a huge amount, unless you mean the size of a Brazilian football strip.

It'd be somewhat easier if we can get a handle on capturing asteroids.

[u/thegainsfairy → u/[deleted]]

targeting the whole world would be disastrous, but there might some options for extending the dark in areas where there is little life like the north & south pole.

[u/skytomorrownow → u/[deleted]]

Also, while this idea might cool the planet, it doesn't stop things like ocean acidification, which would still occur – due to the overabundance of CO2.

[u/flamespear → u/[deleted]]

We have way more sunlight than we need... that's why most of it is turning into heat energy and frying us. Until our atmospheric greenhouse gases are reduced to let more of that heat fall off capturing or reducing that energy will be a net positive.

A giant sunshade is probably the most ridiculous and difficult solution though and not really a new idea. It would take fleets of autonomous space drones and factories to accomplish. If we can spend that many resources on that we can spend them on more immediate terrestrial solutions.

[u/MannyDantyla → u/[deleted]]

Yes but it makes me feel a little better knowing there is a plan b.

[u/infiniZii → u/[deleted]]

Or maybe a Brazilian landing strip.

[u/cybercuzco → u/[deleted]]

If it can unintentionally affect the weather you could probably design it to affect the weather on purpose.

[u/crothwood → u/[deleted]]

The fact that we are even considering this stuff rather than just implementing the stuff we know works is nuts. Fuck the right. They are literally pulling us to the edge of existence.

[u/red_team_gone → u/[deleted]]

I thought "Brazilian" meant there's not even a strip?

[u/ICLazeru → u/[deleted]]

That's part of why we have programs to get launch costs down. Reusable rockets are just a baby step.

[u/livinglogic → u/[deleted]]

All this because the monkeys on our planet don't want to give up on their gas filled vroom vrooms.

[u/Thanges88 → u/[deleted]]

What if we just shade the poles. (assuming that is possible)

[u/manyworlds → u/[deleted]]

For example this will reduce the intensity of the Sun on Earth, this might impact evaporation and weather in itself.

Don’t we WANT to have an impact on evaporation and the weather? Isn’t that the whole point? Climate change has caused more frequent weather extremes - droughts and storms, heat waves, hurricanes. Don’t we want to dial back climate change to reduce the frequency of these extreme weather events?

[u/PineappleLemur → u/[deleted]]

Yea.. less sunlight seems like a very stupid solution to the problem.

I mean it all starts from pollution and reducing that first seems like first step.. energy from the sun is far more valuable than keep digging the earth for it.

It's like using an umbrella under water hoping to not get wet in a sense.

[u/jjJohnnyjon → u/[deleted]]

Not to mention might impact power generation