Hacker News Reader

Comment by wolverine876 | Hacker News Reader

This isn't a Mexican company; the person behind it is.

> Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former director of hardware at Y Combinator ... he started tinkering with releasing sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere with balloons, raised venture capital to fund the startup, and brought on co-founder Andrew Song to manage sales.

Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? After they were forced to stop,

> In a mea culpa blog post published on Wednesday, the startup acknowledged it had barged forward.

> "We appreciate the Mexican government's concern for protecting communities and the natural environment and support their call for scientific expertise and oversight of climate intervention activities. We also appreciate their concern for national and local engagement and regret that we had failed to take this into consideration sooner," Make Sunsets said.

Who believes that? Who would guess that the people of the community and country might want to control experiments in their atmosephere?

View on HN

Andrew Song, Co-Founder of Make Sunsets here.

> Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? After they were forced to stop,

We chose Mexico as our initial launch site because deployment in the tropics have greater cooling per gram via increased particle residence time [1] (another source)[2]. Luke also bought land in Mexico a year ago prior to starting Make Sunsets to build his primary residence. The company was incorporated in October 2022. The US/Mexico does not have a ban on deploying sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, if there was, all commercial air flights would be banned as well. Here is the original press release from the Mexican government: https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/prensa/la-experimentacion-con-ge... and our response: https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/mexico

[1] https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-12131_prese...

[2] https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Sensitiv...

Unrelated, but man do the header images for the blog make the experience rather uncanny. Especially the ones with inaccurate maps [1][2]. I've seen AI art make very realistic faces, but is this state of the art when generating other things, like the aforementioned maps or the Golden Gate Bridge?

[1] https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/the-secret-weapon-to-figh...

[2] https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/calculating-cooling

[3] https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/test1

Thanks for clearing up this controversial topic and showing up to give a detailed explanation.

Without your intervention, I would have kept some speculations as reasonable opinions.

Just read some academic papers and realize that anything we're doing right now to reverse global is a little too late. CDR, DAC, fusion, planting trees, solar, wind, nuclear, and nations coming together to decide we need to deploy stratospheric aerosol injection are all decades away while the planet warms 0.1C every decade.

We deeply respect what scientists have been sounding alarm for years, but more people are worried about putting food on table than catastrophic weather events that might happen in the future.

Totally open to hearing another way to slow down global warming that isn't as fucking crazy as dimming the sun, but we're all addicted to burning dead dinos. Unless we put the environment over profits and scale up CO2 sucking tech, our children will have incredibly shitty lives.

> Just read some academic papers and realize that anything we're doing right now to reverse global is a little too late. CDR, DAC, fusion, planting trees, solar, wind, nuclear, and nations coming together to decide we need to deploy stratospheric aerosol injection are all decades away while the planet warms 0.1C every decade.

> We deeply respect what scientists have been sounding alarm for years, but more people are worried about putting food on table than catastrophic weather events that might happen in the future.

The problem is political, and the fundamental political problem is certain segments of the US who have long insisted government and politics - and even democracy - are hopeless. And they also fail to do their essential part - it takes everyone - to make it happen, politically.

The correlation is powerful. Others can and do come together and get things done democratically. Other countries do it; parts of the country where the GOP isn't in power do it, including cities and states which pass environmental laws.

The rhetoric is self-serving or at least egocentric, that somehow only SV can save us, and that we should give SV more money and power. Isn't it transparent?

The problem is that rhetoric, which also spreads ignorance and despair to others - they are powerless. A powerless people is certainly not the legacy of the United States that was given to us; it's not at all what global warming deniers think. Instead of that rhetoric, let's hear you stand up for people coming together and getting things done, in Congress. It doesn't take decades.

I wish you were right, that people would actually come together and get things done. But again... more people are worried about if they can feed their families than catastrophic climate events might happen in the future. Global warming is still on the back burner for most people, until it's too late and they only care when their house goes underwater, burns, etc.

There is a land war in Europe, what makes you think the world can "come together" if we should or should not experiment with stratospheric aerosol injection? Most likely what will happen is the US or some other developed nation will unilaterally decide we need to do this without any governance, and they will choose us as the deployment partner.

>Instead of that rhetoric, let's hear you stand up for people coming together and getting things done

So far our customers have been law profs, SW engineers, IT professionals, accountants, retired pharma exec, students, and other white-collar jobs. This supports my theory that only the people who have time to worry about global warming is a privileged class, and this comment thread further proves that we have the luxury to discuss such topics.

It looks like carbon fixing is the most promising, followed by dimming the sun.

Fusion is unfortunately not in sight yet. The Livermore PR indicates they are not even close to sustaining a fusion reaction:

Heat generated by the reaction significantly lower than electricity required to power the laser (although it is significantly greater than the power emitted by the laser). Even if laser efficiency were improved to achieve parity, another factor of roughly 2x is needed to make up for losses in heat to electricity conversion. Once that achieved, they will have a facility that can sustain fusion with its own power.

After this point, they must be competitive with electricity generation facilities powered by natural gas, oil, or coal. If, per mega Joule of electricity generated, a gas-powered facility generates X amount of heat directly, Y amount of heat indirectly from atmospheric radiative forcing, and Z amount of heat from processes of carbon fixing 100% of its CO2 emissions, then a fusion power plant cannot be only slightly better than break even in order to be competitive. It must generate that 1 megajoule of electricity while emitting less than X+Y+Z amount of heat.

Lastly, I agree with you that the right time to have gotten started in these efforts and to stop driving around dinosaur sized SUVs was decades ago when Al Gore urged us to heed the impending 400 ppm CO2 milestone with great concern. That was almost two decades ago. I believe around the time of the impending neocon Iraq invasion and occupation.

I'm also a little disappointed in the bureaucratic development (while I know little about it, it seems to me that the sulfur dioxide emitted is not all that harmful if at all, especially at these small amounts).

Lastly, a question I and others are asking, would these small amounts released have any measurable effect, and if so, roughly how much.

Also, Luke is not a Mexican, he's as gringo as they come, but he's learning to speak Spanish.

> [...] experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico?

Yeah I'm not sure that's how the atmosphere works. Surely this stuff would diffuse and affect the atmosphere globally.

Okay... who would judge those who want to do experiments to the global atmosphere from their country.

(though as another user points out this would diffuse globally, but still be concentrated locally)

That's the big question.

That's not the question. The answer to that is Mexico, the article is about Mexico judging it and "cracking down".

The GP was clarifying the context. You refused to talk about the meat of their argument and instead opted to be pedantic about how the atmosphere diffuses.

No it doesn't matter. Where they do this is entirely beside the point. They can do it from international waters. Everyone is affected. Laws are arbitrary.

So laws are arbitrary and if something is arbitrary it doesn't matter, so if anyone does anything that is arbitrary (in your mind) it doesn't matter?

Let's back up for a second. What percentage would you say this experiment has in being correct?

Of course it matters.

I updated my post with a few questions to clarify your stance.

The point of the question is to ask whether you think this has 100% chance of not causing issues.

The next step of course would then be to say, okay if it isn't 100% safe then do you support Mexico's right to say, "hey this could cause us or the world harm, stop it".

It may cause issues, it may not. It's so hard to know, we may not even know even if they do carry out these types of experiments.

Okay, so we're at the next step. Do you support Mexico's decision to stop experiments on the atmosphere that may cause issues?

In the end I don't think it really matters.

That's a cop out to the question and discussion.

It's perfectly in line with my position the whole discussion. Laws are arbitrary. Mexico is a soverign country and have the right to have whatever laws they want.

So you support Mexico's stance then? I was asking for an opinion.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

It was a question, I re-clarified.

In other words, do you think it was right for Mexico to stop this, or do you disagree with their actions?

And my answer is that it doesn't matter. Right or wrong doesn't exist in international politics.

Do I want this to be the state of affairs? No. Can I change it? No. So it doesn't matter.

If all voters felt that way democracy would fall because no-one would do anything.

So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter?

What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter".

> So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter?

To show how it doesn't matter.

> What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter".

You know, what you think also doesn't matter.

> To show how it doesn't matter.

It's counterproductive to talk about something that doesn't matter to you.

> You know, what you think also doesn't matter.

That's subjective. And it mattered enough for you to reply, and for countless others to read, and for me to write.

The discussion about what matters matters, even if the subject itself doesn't matter. It is perhaps the most important category of discussion. If we don't know what matters, how can we put our time to good use?

I think what he means is that Mexico would be just as effected if they did in the ocean, or in India or wherever.

I'm aware. But if it did cause issues it would concentrate in Mexico and dissipate globally.

But what I'm asking them is.. do they believe it's in Mexico's right to ask a person to stop experimenting on the atmosphere (global or otherwise) from their country.

It's great that Mexico is stepping up and protect the atmosphere, which indeed impacts not just Mexico but everybody, but you're absolutely right that international waters are still a massive loophole in the laws of the world. Almost anything goes, there. Many ships still burn incredibly dirty fuel in international waters, simply because they can and it's cheaper. We really need better international regulation of these sort of commons.

Every local action has global consequences.

Throwing a dead battery into a dump -> Battery acid gets dragged by the rain -> Polluting a river -> Flows polluting a sea -> Currents polluting all oceans.

Of course effects become smaller as scope grows, but still in many instances it's measurable, see Fukushima.

Yes, you're missing my point to the GP, and he missed the point to the GGP.

It's in Mexico's right to stop experiments on the global atmosphere from their country.

I doubt either the globalists or the “every country is sovereign”-ists disagree with your last paragraph.

I think it’s also in Mexico’s right to authorize prototype experiments that could be potentially scaled up to have a material global effect.

Didn't miss the point, just observing how it's an irrelevant and counterproductive distraction to the main issue. That sort of thing matters to some people.

As for the rest. I fully agree with sokoloff's reply.

I didn't miss anybody's point. Your comment made me realize something that I wanted to share.

>Okay... who would judge those who want to do experiments to the global atmosphere from their country.

Replace "experiments" with the more general/relevant "atmosphere modifications," which includes pollution for amoral profit motive.

What makes "experiments" special? Is that reasoning morally justifiable, given the many millions who will die in the "business as usual" case?

Partially diffuse globally, partially come down in a downplume. The area under the downplume gets the maximum cooling effect.

I think the area shadowed by the downplume would get the most cooling, while the area downwind of the downplume gets the fallout. Baja is dependent on fishing along the coast, though not in the hotter months.

If nations don't have national sovereignty over their slice of the atmosphere, then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime?

[For clarity I don't particularly disagree with this stance, but my mostly-overlooked point is that:]

If people really think this, why is it that (on HN in particular) we overwhelmingly hear this point made in the context of geoengineering, and not for regular old pollution? Isn't that a double standard?

The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944

It's also brought up for "regular old pollution". Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal. South Korean associations are making efforts in China to stop them from building incinerators on their east coast, outside of Beijing.

You probably are just not living in an area of concern.

And of course entire countries are being wiped out due to global (20% US, 11% China, 7% Russia) CO2 emissions

Entire countries? IPCC projections don't indicate any island nations going underwater in the next two centuries.

If Bloomberg is to be believed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-c...), climate change is killing an Ireland's worth of people every year.

What's that have to do with sea level rise?

The only one who mentioned sea level rise was you.

I assumed "wiped out" meant that the country would actually be depopulated. The levels of warming anticipated cannot do that.

Sure, only 80% of say the maldives by the time my kids are my age.

I wonder what Americans would do if other countries worked together to put every single state apart from Alaska and half of Texas underwater in the next generation.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/80-of-maldives-could-b...

2050 is a 10cm rise from today. I expect most of the Maldives is already "uninhabitable" (and always was) by whatever standard is being used there.

You could literally dredge up land 100x faster than sea levels rise for the Maldives.

There are many nasty consequences of global climate change, sea level rise is an irrelevant distraction from things like India heating up and ocean acidification.

> Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal.

Unfortunately it is not my impression that this is happening. (Also two neighboring countries - poland and czechia - of Germany have an even higher share of coal and one - the netherlands - is in the same ballpark.)

> Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal.

Which is ridiculous on its own, Poland has been ordered for years to shut down the Turow open-pit mine on the border to Germany and Czechia, they refused and were sentenced to 500.000€ per day of continued operation [1], got 15 million € in EU disbursements held back [2]... the size of that thing is insane [3].

[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/polen-tagebau-turow...

[2] https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/polen-eu-kommission-behaelt-n...

[3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagebau_Tur%C3%B3w#/media/Date...

Your description is slightly inaccurate:

In February 2021, the Czech Republic sued Poland over the mine at the European Court of Justice, the first time that an EU member state had sued another one over an environmental issue.[10]

In May 2021, Poland defied an injunction by the court that ordered the immediate closure of the mine, claiming it would have an adverse impact the country's energy system and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.[11]

Because Poland had not ceased lignite extraction activities at the Turów mine, on 20 September 2021, the Vice-President of the Court ordered Poland to pay the European Commission a daily penalty payment of half a million euros,[13] but the Polish government refused to comply.[4]

I totally built my coal plants in the corner of the city in SimCity

Yes, the atmosphere is fundamentally a commons. Some pollution impacts mostly at the location of emission and can be regulated by local/national law, but a great deal of pollution (notably CO2) has a global impact.

Same goes for oceans.

There are many international treaties and conventions that recognize this, but they clearly don't go far enough, and we run into the "fear of a world government" issue here.

I'd be entirely unsurprised if countries eventually start considering disproportionate pollution to be an act of war.

"then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime?"

We are maybe not saying that in one voice, but many people, including myself are saying exactly that since quite a while. Same with polluting the groundwater, or the ocean.

One has to differentiate, of course and it is scale that matters. One coal fire is neglectible, but powering the economy with (maybe even unfiltered) coal plants is not. Yet most nations still do it, so it will take a while, before this will be seriously considered a punishable crime.

> One coal fire is neglectible, but...

... a balloon releasing under a pound of SO2 is an international outrage?

My concern is exactly that we don't have a proper sense of scale on this issue.

But the idea is, that this will be scaled up.

But yes, most people are not good at math or basic science, to understand the proportions.

Do you not consider anthropogenic climate change an air pollution issue?

I don't think they do. They have sovereignty over their airspace but not atmosphere and certainly not the cone into infinity.

> The general debate has become extremely irrational, to the point that your intent is all that matters.

Worse: if your intent is to externalize costs onto everyone else, that's fine and dandy, but if your intent is to fix those externalities then you're the asshole, because reasons.

It does seem to be a common thread - not just on HN, but HN does attract entrepreneurs and aspirants thereof, who in turn tend to skew religiously capitalist, so it's unsurprising that it's a bit more pronounced here. The sort of attitude on display transcends climate denialism and jumps straight to what seems to be climate hostility: "I have a God-given right to harm everyone around me to make a quick buck and fuck you for daring to do anything about it".

The reaction to geoengineering is consistent with reaction to ecoactivism: hostile, and demonstrating an absense of self-awareness. Yes, geoengineers and ecoactivists alike can be misguided sometimes; no, that does not mean they're in any way the "bad guys" for daring to at least try to do something about the Cult of Capital destroying the Earth in the name of the Holy Profit.

They're releasing something into the atmosphere, then measuring its effect before it disperses so much that it loses its measurable effect.

That means that it affects people locally, not globally.

(It's about 1kg of materials released.)

The plan was to release 10 to 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. I don’t think it would affect anything at all. The experiment seems of questionable value, but it doesn’t seem dangerous.

The question isn’t whether 3 balloons of 500 grams of sulphur dioxide is dangerous, the question is should rando startups be allowed to put toxic chemicals in our air. What if they decided their experiment of 1.5kb of sulphur dioxide was a success? What is the obvious next step? 1500kg, 1.5Mg? Ten more startups doing the same, realizing whoever gets there first will make money?

Sulfur dioxide is naturally occurring, released by volcanoes in massive amounts. In these kinds of qualities it’s pretty safe by comparison.

I think we’re being way too cautious when it comes to geoengineering, at a time when we should be aggressively testing hypotheses to get some actual options on the table.

Arsenic, uranium, almost everything is naturally occurring. Forest fires and, as you note, volcanoes are naturally occurring. That doesn't make them safe.

Being natural does not make it safe. It is however a common food additive, and we’re talking very small quantities here. It’s really not the “toxic chemicals” as claimed by the OP.

FWIW, I was just quoting Wikipedia. Sulfur dioxide is a “toxic gas”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide

presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved, not when you're doing safe experiments to find out whether the potentially dangerous thing has potential benefits that might justify riskier experiments

also sulfite isn't within the usual meaning of 'toxic chemical', it's a common antioxidant food additive, although like acetic acid it's corrosive enough to have killed people in high concentrations

the last time I inhaled a bunch of it, it was not an enjoyable experience

> presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved

Who decides where that point is? Some people with money or the people of Mexico?

I think the difficulty in this conversation is that I believe that objective reality exists, and you believe that it does not, so questions like this are just a matter of social consensus. Given this fundamental disagreement, there is no possibility of finding common ground, so continuing the conversation would be pointless.

Eventually. Until then its cloud over Mexico.

Farts also eventually dissipate in the atmosphere. I still would prefer that they don’t get released in my immediate vicinity.

Mexico City has a significant problem with air pollution because the mountains enclose most of it, like a bowl. Perfect place to make their atmospheric experiments because diffusion is slower.

See also Monsanto testing gene spliced corn, on a plateau, above landrace corn. Mexico takes its corn seriously, and cross breeding with patented corn would either be disastrous or force the Mexican government into voiding patent treaties.

I believe the Willamette Valley in Oregon, which grows most of the grass seed for NA, as well as exports, officially told GMO researchers that they could fuck right off.

> so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico?

So it's okay to do experiments with the atmosphere, as long as you re-brand them as "pollution" instead of as "experiments"?

(and of course, organizationally separate the scientists performing the data collection/analysis steps)

You answered his question with another question.

I believe your question is insinuating that pollution is branded as such and is really an experiment? I don't follow.. can you expand on that or clarify?

But first please answer their question before shifting the conversation.

No, my point is that the atmosphere doesn't care what we call it. It's just a semantics game.

People care, but we do it in such a backwards way that the rule is apparently "you can hurt (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help!"

Clearly, if anything, the move is to re-brand geoengineering as "normal pollution". It wouldn't even be hard: every 737 emits 500 grams of SO2 in less than 100 miles, and not a peep!

You still didn't answer the original question posed to you by the GP, so I don't know your stance or line of reasoning.

And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps.

These experiments / solar geo-engineering / terraforming may hurt.

There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?

My stance is that GP is asking misleading questions that distract from the main issue (all-source emissions).

> And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps.

The critical word is "try."

Apparently, the rule is that your intent is all that matters. If you're trying to profit, it's pollution and it's fine. If you intend to help, all hell breaks loose.

Exxon can burn down the world, but utter the words "geoengineering" and you can't so much as swat a fly.

I'm not saying this is logical or correct. I'm just saying that these appear to be the rules as constrained by (not always rational) public opinion.

> There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?

There are justifications both "for" and "against" (like any complex real-world issue), but the public debate has been extremely skewed.

Well it s not an experiment if it's pollution: it's a compromise. We know we degrade it, we dont know an alternative, or dont want to try.

An experiment is limited in time, serves no purpose but knowledge acquisition, and can fail. When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail, and people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise.

A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try.

Sure, I know the definitions.

> A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try.

It won't seriously deter them either. The public outcry over even the attempt is a more concerning deterrent.

> When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail

Tell that to Texas.

> people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise.

Yes, people tend to overvalue immediate visible benefits and undervalue long-term costs (like the climate 100 years hence) or invisible benefits (like gaining scientific knowledge by performing insignificant-scale geoengineering tests).

People are irrational. This is known. We should strive to be less irrational.

I suspect choosing Mexico was deliberate. Mexico won’t mandate low-sulphur diesel for a few years. If the SO2 in the balloon happens to be sourced from diesel, then legally this is moving pollution using latex.

Why don't they just stick to Colorado, where most other weather modification programs are run? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380470

Can you divide the effects from each other?

So if project A does something, what if it influences project B?

The signal is so weak, anyway, that's it's practically impossible to decide cause and affect. I think it's mentioned in that article that they start with an area that's already got some rain or snow clouds and try to boost their output by a few points and hope that a trend emerges over time.

Also, they do these on a small local scale, like spraying this morning to boost the rain this afternoon.

You need a permit in Colorado and the projects seem related to snow generation, which makes sense given that skiing is a huge industry for the state.

> Colorado, where most other weather modification programs are run

Are you sure? That claim doesn't appear in the linked article.

Here's the official list of projects in the US:

https://library.noaa.gov/Collections/Digital-Collections/Wea...

The geoengineering goal here is to release the particles into the stratosphere, which is at 10-30 km altitude, and not generally breathed by the people on the ground.

Let's not pretend that releasing 500g of sulfur dioxide there has any impact on people on the ground.

then maybe it should be done in america, mexico has zero obligation to allow experimentation in their atmosphere.

If it has no effect, why are they bothering to do it?

Does releasing 500g of co2 have any impact on tbe people on the ground?

Because the have VConey, need to show traction and sell you "cooling credits" in their web shop. So every ounce of PR, positive or negative, helps.

I think the intention is to test the release mechanism, and maybe the immediate blocking effect at the site.

Why yes, what could possibly go wrong by releasing the main constituent of acid rain in an haphazard attempt to cool down the Earth, a problem itself created by releasing uncontrolled quantities of other pollutants.

Sounds like the setup for a dystopia.

We're long past dystopia, then.

500 grams of SO2 is released by a 737 flying less than 100 miles.

That's something of a straw man. Air pollution is one thing. Deliberate experimentation with hazardous emissions calculated to be scaled up on a global level with impacts on us all, is a completely different thing.

You have it exactly backwards.

Your semantics game is the "straw man." The atmosphere doesn't care what we call it, only what we dump in it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944

>calculated to be scaled up on a global level

You say that like polluting industries don't try to scale up to a global level.

Industries don't try to scale up pollution. The pollution is a by-product of trying to scale up profits. And one wrong doesn't make the other a right.

>Industries don't try to scale up pollution. The pollution is a by-product of trying to scale up profits.

There's that word "try" again...

My exact point is that the atmosphere doesn't care about intent. It cares about emissions.

Humans care about intent. That's fine, but apparently the rule here is that you can hurt people (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help people!

My argument is that maybe we should rethink this ethical schema.

Not sure I follow you any more. In what way would you like to rethink this ethical schema? What schema?

The wildly disproportionate pollution vs geoengineering double standard that paralyzes us in the face of arguably the greatest existential threat to our species (perhaps second only to nuclear weapons).

>> apparently the rule here is that you can hurt people (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help people!

I think that's a big misunderstanding. Climate change is not exactly an immense existential threat to our species. It's threatening the livelihood and sustainability of life in almost all impoverished regions, and will cause the death and suffering of 100s of millions/billions of people.

The average 1-percenter who participates in this forum will probably see nothing more than a few tourist destinations changed, need to crank up the AC a bit more, less options for skiing in winter, and price of exotic fruits increasing.

The combination of climate change, loss of wildlife habitat, biogeochemical flows, ocean acidification, etc, could very well be a threat to our existence as a species, yes. Climate change is only one of them, and the injection of SO2 in the atmosphere only solves this one, with unclear and potentially negative consequences on all the other planetary boundaries.

Whataboutism

People really shouldn't comment before doing a bit of googling on the scale of things. I doubt you'd have made this comment if you'd known how SO2 much was being released and how much is normally released during the course of the day.

I indeed knew the scale, it's plastered all over this thread, but it's not relevant to the point being made.

The whole scheme is harebrained regardless of the amount, what depends on the amount is the harm it can cause, in the range <totally harmless, with perhaps some barely detectable rain acidity local increases ... Venus-like global catastrophe>.

Your stated point was acid rain. And the amounts are too low to cause that, making your point invalid.

My stated point was acid raid in the context of climate engineering, there was nothing said about quantity. Small quantities will cause acid rain in undetectable amounts, and have the same nil effect on climate, but presumably the end goal is to have a measurable effect on climate.

Since we already have SO2-induced acid rain on a warming planet, and there is no real motive to believe such intentional releases will be confined to the upper layers of the atmosphere, it follows that such climate engineering attempts will have a measurable effect on acid rain.

So the point is perfectly valid even if you won't follow it through to the logical conclusion. Just like these clowns here.

The atmosphere now has borders?

We deploy 20km up. We spoke with people at Project Loon and the only orgs that are in that space is the military and they don't want you to know they're up there.

Compare the emissions to driving a car, flying a plane, or launching a rocket... or a volcano

Next stop: international waters.

I think I’ve had about enough of venture capitalists. It’s tiring it this point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com