top | item 34159013

(no title)

alfl | 3 years ago

Bigger problem is the thousands of companies altering atmospheric chemistry with greenhouse gasses, not one tiny company trying to counteract them with sulfur.

discuss

order

upsidesinclude|3 years ago

>... experts in the field think such efforts are wildly premature, however, and could have the opposite effect from what Iseman expects.

>“The current state of science is not good enough … to either reject, or to accept, let alone implement solar geoengineering," Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative, told MIT Technology Review.

No. You are wrong and Iseman is wrong.

yreg|3 years ago

> could have the opposite effect

What's the mechanism of the possible opposite effect?

kolinko|3 years ago

This startup wants to enable them to keep polluting with co2 as long as they pollute stratosphere with sulfur as well.

Also, even with those companies we have regulations that forced them to filter out most of the pollution and we’re implementing regulations that will shut them down altogether.

LatteLazy|3 years ago

Exactly: You can dump chemicals into the air because you want to make a profit, but if you do it for social/environmental reasons suddenly you've "gone rogue"!?

upsidesinclude|3 years ago

What is it about virtue signaling that prevents people from seeing their own stupidity?

>“To go ahead with implementation at this stage is a very bad idea,” Pasztor

aww_dang|3 years ago

Turtles all the way down. The social/environmental cover is a cash grab through bureaucratic means. He's gone rogue in that he isn't planning the climate via a supranational bureau of experts.

>The company says it has raised $750,000 in funding from Boost VC and Pioneer Fund, among others, and that its early investors have also been purchasing cooling credits.