To add two points to this discussion.
First, there are some serious flaws with solar geoengineering offsets analogous to carbon offsets. This isn't only because of the broader problem of public trust with any commercial use of SG. It's also because carbon markets are designed for removals that are permanent at human time-scales; and because there is some scope for market demand to fluctuate. SG offset markets simply do not make sense because what if there is a sudden drop (or spike) in demand? This certainly doesn't matter if you are releasing a few grams or kilograms in total, but at a larger scale, you would need some rather complex reserve-banking system to avoid termination shock if demand crashes. So let's face it, these credits are simply a gimmick for making money from gullible investors. Second, many people have, for years, tried to steer a cautious and somewhat even-handed course through what you are all aware is an incredibly polarized public debate. Discussing geoengineering in a balanced and civilized manner is difficult enough as it is, without dubious start-up entrepreneurs doing who-knows-what because they recently read a novel by Neal Stephenson. I feel this is really counterproductive and undercuts the efforts of all those that have been trying to build public trust and engagement for informed and high-quality future decision-making. This little adventure isn't going to help with anything and we all know the potential political ramifications. Just my 2 cents, Florian On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 1:09:51 AM UTC+2 [email protected] wrote: > Thanks Andrew, Olivier, Bala, and everyone else for diving in with > critiques here. I'm a cofounder of Make Sunsets and want to clarify a few > things: > > *Honesty: * > We have no desire to mislead anyone. If we make a mistake (which we will), > we'll correct it. > *Radiative Forcing:* > I didn't make this "gram offsets a ton" number up. It comes from David > Keith's research: > "a gram of aerosol in the stratosphere, delivered perhaps by high-flying > jets, could offset the warming effect of a ton of carbon dioxide, a factor > of 1 million to 1." > <https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/news/whats-right-temperature-earth> > and, again: "Geoengineering’s leverage is very high—one gram of particles > in the stratosphere prevents the warming caused by a ton of carbon dioxide." > <https://longnow.org/seminars/02015/feb/17/patient-geoengineering/> > By stating "offsetting the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon for 1 year," > I was trying to be more conservative than Professor Keith. I am correcting > "carbon" to read "carbon dioxide" on the cooling credit description right > now, and I'm adding a paragraph at the start of the post stating that > estimates vary, but a leading researcher cites a gram offsetting a ton. > For the several hundred dollars of cooling credits we've already sold, > I'll be providing evidence to each purchaser that I've delivered at least 2 > grams per cooling credit. > Olivier, or anyone else: I'd be happy to post something by you to our blog > explaining what you estimate the radiative forcing of 1g so2 released at > 20km altitude from in or near the tropics will be and why. I will include > language of your choosing explaining that you in no way endorse what we are > doing. > I very much hope to get suggestions from this community on instrumentation > we should fly to improve the state of the science here. Again, I'm happy to > do this with disclaimers about how researchers we fly things for are not > endorsing our efforts. Or even without revealing who the researchers are: > we'll fly test instruments and provide data, no questions asked:) > *Telemetry: * > My first 2 flights had no telemetry: in April, this was still in > self-funded science project territory. After burning some sulfur and > capturing the resultant gas, I placed this in a balloon. I then added > helium, underinflating the balloon substantially, and let it go. There is > technically a slim possibility that neither of these balloons reached the > stratosphere, as I acknowledged to the Technology Review reporter. I will > add Spot trackers to my next flights. These cut out at 18km, so I'l be able > to confirm that I achieve at least this altitude. If (and this is a big if) > I'm able to recover the balloons, I'll have a lot more data from the flight > computer > <https://www.highaltitudescience.com/collections/electronics/products/eagle-flight-computer>. > > I will eventually switch to Swarms > <https://www.sparkfun.com/products/19236?utm_campaign=May%206%2C%202022&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=212205037&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9EyQOQ6C-9XuSOHa7CggOC8Pf2tEow_Fppo5pXgTHO8-7gV-aHrrYpnPcliws6Ju8j2PBAX3Tkog0oVpwk8XqWX2xo0w&utm_content=212206499&utm_source=hs_email>, > > which should let me transmit more data regardless of balloon recovery. > *Pricing: * > Bala, you're totally right that this should be priced much lower. We're > trying to make enough with our early flights to stay in business until we > get meaningful traction with customers, and we plan to eventually drop > prices to $1 per ton or less. > *Reuse: * > We are not yet reusing balloons, and Andrew is correct that latex UV > degradation will limit our ability to do so with weather balloons. Given > that balloon cost is our main expense per gram, even a few uses per balloon > will dramatically improve the economics here. > > I expect to disagree with some of you, but I hope we can do so politely > and assuming good intentions. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4958bf23-ab24-433a-a514-d5f43f020777n%40googlegroups.com.
