On the table is SRM, “solar reduction methods,” which is rapidly gathering acceptance in the SO2 method where Sulfur Dioxide is injected into the stratosphere.
Keys to its growing acceptance are:
1. One gram of SO2 so placed will reflect enough solar gain during the 2 years it is aloft to displace the effect of 1 ton of CO2.
2. Some claim that currently one death in every 7 is caused by climate change.
3. The cost to put one kg of SO2 into the stratosphere is $1, in fact, www.MakeSunsets.com, is making a profit at that price and hopes to scale up by a million fold to make a significant effect.
4. SO2 is already killing millions a year but that happens in the troposphere but the dangers from SO2 in the stratosphere is obviously much less.
5. SRM creates dangers to the environment, economy, rainfall, agricultures, etc that seem to be orders of magnitude smaller than what MakeSunsets is doing even when it is scaled up to make a difference at 20 tons a year.
Searching for an ethical comparison, Dr. Myron Katz asked ChatGPT.
Delaying the medical treatment of a pandemic (the systemic public health response) based on incomplete knowledge is rarely justified in modern ethics. In fact, public health frameworks like the Precautionary Principle argue that scientific uncertainty should not preclude taking protective action when there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm. [1, 2, 3]
However, specific justifications for waiting or proceeding cautiously include:
Preventing “Ambiguity Aversion”: Public health authorities may occasionally delay the rollout of a communication or treatment strategy if the uncertainty is so high that it would trigger “ambiguity aversion”—a psychological response where the public avoids necessary care due to heightened worry or mistrust caused by conflicting or incomplete information. [8, 9]
Summary Table: Action vs. Delay Principle [4, 5, 6, 7, 10] Stance on Delay Reason
Precautionary Principle Against Delay: Better to act in time than wait for full evidence of harm.[4]
Primum Non Nocere: Supports Delay, “First, do no harm”; avoid unproven treatments with unknown risks.
Duty to Learn: Supports Structured Delay Prioritizes clinical trials to ensure long-term effectiveness. [5, 6]
Proportionality: Supports Strategic Delay – Ensures the response doesn’t cause more harm than the disease. [7]
[1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[3] https://utrechtlawreview.org
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[6] https://jamanetwork.com
[10] https://www.tandfonline.com
PBS’ Cool Us or Kill Us? Did Geoengineering ALREADY Cause a Massive Famine? https://youtu.be/IeRcFe9VM5o?si=tVPBnu6nMMl9-rjj
Make Sunsets Company: https://makesunsets.com/
Reflective: https://www.reflective.org/
#srm #solar #climate
[00:00:00] Meeting setup and PBS clip
[00:00:48] African famine tied to aerosols
[00:02:41] Recent heat and soot masking
[00:04:45] Pinatubo shows cooling effect
[00:05:45] Make Sunsets balloon deployment
[00:06:52] Scientists warn of risks
[00:08:02] Sahel drought cautionary example
[00:10:34] Political risks and open question
[00:11:23] Post-video discussion begins
[00:12:05] More videos and source context
[00:14:01] AI ethics and pandemic analogy
[00:15:16] Irreversible Antarctic ice concerns
[00:17:40] Tor challenges medical comparison
[00:20:42] Band-aid versus real solution
[00:21:50] Private actors could act anyway
[00:23:52] Dakota Groner and credibility
[00:26:53] Belief versus action disagreement
[00:30:03] Volcanic evidence and geology concerns
[00:31:58] Reflective research and uncertainty
[00:32:08] Mission and uncertainty table
[00:34:00] Cooling effect, cost, inevitability
[00:38:14] Other geoengineering options introduced
[00:39:06] Marine cloud brightening risks
[00:41:21] Space mirror concept
[00:42:32] Language, ethics, and distraction
[00:44:33] Fear of distracting from decarbonization
[00:45:49] Band-aid buys time argument
[00:49:05] Protecting life and Nepal example
[00:51:53] Fossil fuels remain core issue
[00:53:34] “Later is too late”
[00:55:57] Multiple solutions and safety concerns
[00:55:57] Yes-and approach to solutions
[00:59:17] Imperfect choices versus inaction
[01:00:13] Sulfur and aerosol safety questions
[01:04:26] Would this help fossil fuels?
[01:07:11] Ends, means, and treatment analogy
[01:11:46] Tipping points and 1.5°C
[01:14:10] Urgency, governance, and closing views
[01:15:18] Even with progress, still need time
[01:16:02] Not enough information debate
[01:19:21] Arguing over sulfur deployment scale
[01:25:21] Research, testing, and urgency restated
[01:27:45] Funding and who decides
[01:30:30] Optimism versus doom framing
[01:36:23] Eric accepts urgency, will read more
[01:39:41] Final band-aid summary
[01:42:19] Meeting wrap-up and goodbyes
