In addition to actual reporting, the NYT creates newslike ads for the fossil fuels industry. This results in disproportionate attention on high-risk approaches that involve anything other than phasing out fossil fuel use.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
11 points

Blocking the sun is not a practical solution. Putting something up in the atmosphere is untested and super dangerous. It could cause all life on Earth to die out like the Matrix.

Physically blocking the sun is also practically impossible. It requires that we put an object in space in a Lagrange point (gravitationally stable points around Earth) which is very far away and the sun shield would have to be approximately the size of Brazil. Launching that much material into space and getting it into position, and then unfurling it would be a HUUUUUUGE undertaking the likes of which we have never seen. Plus, launching all those rockets, mining the materials, etc, would emit so many tonnes of green house gasses that by the time we actually did it we might be in an even worse position.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

couldn’t we like nuke the Moon or something?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If we were speed running the extinction of humanity, then yes!

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 3.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.8K

    Posts

  • 6K

    Comments

Community moderators