How Bill Gates-Funded Solar Geoengineering Could Help End Climate Change

How Bill Gates-Funded Solar Geoengineering Could Help End Climate Change

The record-number of fires burning
across Brazil’s Amazon rainforest has prompted renewed global outcry over
climate change and big spending. Five million dollars from Leonardo DiCaprio,
10 million pounds from the U.K. Meanwhile, Bill Gates is
backing the first high-altitude experiment of one radical climate change solution,
creating a massive chemical cloud that could cool the earth. It’s
called solar geoengineering, and it’s highly controversial. How long will it be that
countries keep experiencing these climate impacts before someone gets desperate and says, hey,
we need to cool the planet with solar geoengineering? It would look something like this: thousands
of planes would fly very high and use nozzles to inject millions
of tons of light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere. It would create
a thin chemical cloud of those particles around the whole planet,
blocking some sunlight from reaching the surface. It would mimic a giant
volcanic eruption, which we know cools the earth. Back in 1991, Mount
Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. It was the largest eruption to
affect a densely populated area, creating avalanches and giant mud flows that left
more than 700 dead and 30,000 homeless. It also spewed a cloud of
20 million tons of sulfur dioxide particles into the stratosphere. That chemical cloud was hundreds of miles
across and reflected about 2% of sunlight back to space. And in 1992, the earth
was cooler than in 1991. That is part of the mechanism. But you do this in a controlled way. Modeling studies have found that it
could reduce the intensity of heat waves, for instance. Apparently it could reduce the
rate of sea level rise. It could reduce the
intensity of tropical storms. But it also comes with
significant risks and uncertainties. Things like mass famine, mass flooding,
drought of kinds that will affect very large populations. It could weaken monsoons in India,
China and Africa enough to affect crops. It could eradicate blue sky. You start increasing the amount of diffused
light and you have less direct light, which is the same thing as
saying it looks hazy and white. And if the global community
decides it should stop? So you stop injecting it and after a
year, the cloud is gone and you get this rapid warming at a rate much faster
than you would get if we had done nothing. If you’ve taken out the greenhouse
gases that are adding to the warming, then the temperature won’t go
up and stay what it is. So if we don’t stop emitting
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we don’t try as hard as we can to
do that, then there’s no point in doing solar geoengineering. A 2016 opinion poll conducted by
the Harvard group doing solar geoengineering research found that 67 %
of subjects support its use. One reason this technology
is appealing it’s cheap. One study estimates it would
cost an average of $2.25 billion globally every year for the
first 15 years of deployment. Compare that to the half
a trillion dollars the U.S. government estimates it will
cost just the U.S. by 2100 if no action is taken
against climate change, or the $1.6 to $3.8 trillion projected global spending
by 2050 on low-carbon energy production. You can also compare it
to direct air carbon capturing, another climate change solution backed by
Bill Gates and by big oil. It involves sucking billions of tons of
carbon out of the air and at $100-$200 a ton, it
could be big business. Solar geoengineering, on the other hand,
is so cheap that nobody currently stands to make money
from the process. But just because a solution is cheap doesn’t
make it make it a good one. It’s cheap and dangerous. It doesn’t require a
lot of materials. It doesn’t require a big innovation. It basically affects the whole
planet with one project. So that is not necessarily a situation
that has a lot of profit opportunity, right? Because there’s not gonna be a lot of
different people that can do it and compete in a marketplace. Bill Gates is among a dozen
individual donors and 14 foundations backing the first stratospheric solar geoengineering
experiment out of Harvard. It’s called Stratospheric Controlled
Perturbation Experiment, or SCoPEx. A high-altitude balloon will lift instruments
about 20 kilometers into the stratosphere, where it will release less
than two kilograms of different naturally occurring chemicals like calcium
carbonate and sulfates, and then measure the change in
atmospheric chemistry and light scattering. The Harvard group that runs SCoPEx
and other experiments has raised more than 16 million dollars, more than
double any other solar geoengineering effort. And annual global funding has gone
up from $1 million in 2008 to $8 million in 2018, with the majority
of that funding coming from the U.S. The first phase of SCoPEx will cost
around $3 million, with much more needed for wider research
on solar geoengineering. To this point, stratosphere injections have
only been tested with climate modeling. In the U.K., a government-funded solar radiation management
test called SPICE was cancelled in 2012 because
of issues with patents. And we’re not trying to develop any
technology that is patented or where we want to make money
with this later on. A study last year found that
no existing aircraft can inject the stratosphere at a
high enough altitude. But developing a new high-altitude
tanker would not be technologically difficult or prohibitively expensive. Nozzles still need to be designed
that can continuously blast out trillions of particles. And scientists still
need to decide what chemicals those particles should be made of. But unlike cloud brightening, which
is another solar reflection technique, the tech needed for stratospheric
injections is not far off. The technology is not the main
thing that’s holding this back. The main thing that’s holding it back
is the uncertainty about what the exact effects would be and the positives
and negatives of its effects and the governance and decision making
process for implementing it. Other radical attempts to control climate
change have been tested in the past. Like when one California businessman dumped
100 tons of iron dust in the Pacific to spawn the
growth of carbon-absorbing plankton. But unlike small, sometimes
rogue experiments, planet-wide solar geoengineering will require buy-in
from the international community. You know, in our simulations, we found
China got warmer and drier relative to the past when you stabilize global
temperature and India was now cooler and wetter. So you can see
there how, you know, international relations around using this technology
could become complicated. I mean, we can’t even decide on
what to do about emissions of greenhouse gases. And so how are we going
to decide on setting the planetary thermostat? There’s this real concern that we won’t
be able to reach agreement, we being the entire planet. And so there’s the prospect that countries
just go ahead and do solar geoengineering. And that causes
disagreement, conflict, tension, even possibly war. Three years ago, the international community
did come together when almost 200 countries signed the Paris Agreement
on climate change, agreeing to limit global temperature rise to
less than two degrees Celsius. Since then, President Trump has stated
his intent to withdraw from the agreement. The Paris Climate accord is simply
the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that
disadvantages the United States. And global emissions are not being
reduced fast enough to reach these goals. We know what we should be doing. What we should be doing
is reducing carbon emissions. So we’re creating a moral hazard. We are providing an out for you where
you can say, well, I’m going to fix this technologically instead of doing the
ethically right thing to do. It’s way too early to give up
on much more ethical approaches to climate change. If future generations were literally in
the room to question us on our dubious arguments, we wouldn’t get far
with some of the kinds of arguments we’re trying to offer
for neglecting conventional climate policy and going down this path. For now, the failure to rapidly
reduce emissions has prompted more exploration of alternative solutions like
carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering. But scientists warn we
will still need to reduce emissions, too. If we’re not cutting CO2 emissions at
the same time, from my perspective, there is little point in doing this
because you would have to start using ever increasing amounts. No responsible scientist says that
it’s a silver bullet. All the responsible scientists say this is
something that we deploy if we had to, alongside all the other stuff
that we already have to do. The U.S. Academies of Sciences is holding
a series of meetings to study solar geoengineering, including one
at Stanford this month. The committee will issue a report
next year with recommendations for how or if solar geoengineering
research should continue. Some scientists say the research is
necessary in order to arm future generations with the ability to enact
this backup plan, even though it seems nearly impossible now. We ought to start working on
this solar climate engineering problem right now with as much urgency as we can so
that if we want to deploy it in a decade or so, we understand
what we have to do. This is a real moral horror, especially
in a situation where we’re not doing all the things that we could
be doing to minimize the risks of climate catastrophe now. But experts do agree that more
public awareness is needed around solar geoengineering, because within a couple decades,
for better or worse, it could be part of the solution
helping return the planet to pre-industrial temperatures. Modeling evidence gathered over the
last decade has pretty consistently found that a moderate amount
of solar geoengineering could significantly reduce many of the
impacts of climate change. But it can’t be a solution because
it doesn’t return the climate system back to how it was. It doesn’t
do anything about things like ocean acidification. So whatever happens, we’ve got
to cut our CO2 to zero. So right now, we need more research
to understand this better and a broader conversation so that all of the
world’s nations have a seat at the table when this is discussed.

100 comments / Add your comment below

  1. Oh no I thought this was a conspiracy theory!!!!!? Hmmmm?! To much of any “natural” element is toxic. Soooo how much crap are they going to need to spray in the atmosphere? Bill is the government subsidizing this project? The same government that’s in big oils pocket? You know the one responsible for “climate change” they alway denied exists?

  2. This is ridiculous, geoengineering has been going on for decades on a global scale.. simply search or search dane wigington on YouTube. I have been watching the sky getting sprayed for 10 years now and I'm always astonished that the general public don't notice.

  3. It won't stop the oceans from acidifying and destroying the food chain up from krill and shellfish on up. There's no excuse for the rich companies polluting on a massive scale, and geo-engineering is no fig leaf.

  4. Nothing is going to help end climate change, it's called being delusional and false hope. Rebel for Life, Extinction Rebellion, 7th of October.

  5. Treeessss and renewables! ! Just pumping CO2 all the time while some random gases will reflect heat and radiation… that's stupid what if the gases will desapear and have an instant heat wave that will wipe out the life (in the future)

  6. That would be a total stupidity, the earth climate change is a natural cycle process, yes humans has helped this process to be faster, but the only thing that we as humans need to focused is on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. And let the earth climate change continue the natural process.

  7. When humans end all nuclear practices, lunar and solar exploration, aerial trash on oceans, gasoline use, and solar panels misuse, then the climate won't change so dramatically.

  8. Bill Gates attempting to play God… SMH May his health be adversely affected while his team unilaterally performs SCoPEx and other geoengineering experiments. Just because you have money doesn't give you the right to experiment with Earth's atmosphere — even with "international governance."

  9. Looks like these dangerous psychopaths are being totally blind to the dire consequences of their stupid ideas, as to the true NATURE of the climate changes which are heading us towards the new era of global cooling rather that warming… These dangerous wanna-be-gods are making it all even worse!!! And what´s even worse: what they are falsly presenting as an idea or plans to do, is in fact already happening!

  10. Lol so if you have billions of dollars you can screw the entire human race? Lovely. Do you think if there were a vote the planet would Back a non scientist, tax dodging billionaires idea on how to cool the planet so even MORE oil and gas spills,air pollution, cancer, species extinction mass human deaths are possible?

  11. It's a bunch of B.S., all these billionaires want us to believe there's some sort of gimmick solution just around the corner so that we let them continue on as usual.

  12. Point 1. Climate always changes. Until you turn off that big light 96,000,000 miles away you are not going to stop climate change. These people are just stupid. A made up problem being 'solved' by trillions dollars. This is mass hysteria and total stupidity. Guess what people CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere, a trace gas. Nature creates 97% of that. Humans 3%. Water vapor is 10x more of a greenhouse gas than C02. Climate Change is a made up control mechanism to give governments an excuse to CONTROL you. It was started by Al Gore. And it is a HUGE lie!

  13. They have been Geoengineering for decades already. Check out this video.

    What has happened to our once brilliant blue skies? How many have noticed the change?

    “The Dimming”, a ground breaking documentary that is currently in production, will provide answers and proof to what’s happening in our skies. Below is the first 60 second trailer on the upcoming film.

    Hear Member Testimony From:

    *Union Of Concerned Scientists
    *Former Commercial Airline Pilots
    *U.S. Neurosurgeon Dr. Blaylock MD
    *Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, PhD (Germany)
    *Dept. Of Fish And Game
    *U.S. Department Of Agriculture
    *U.S. Forrest Service
    *Environmental Protection Agency
    *Former Presidential Cabinet Member
    *Former CIA Agent
    *Former Canadian Minister Of Defence
    *Former Military Members

    Watch preview here:

  14. The areas in the Bahamas destroyed by Dorian (Abacos, Marsh) were coincidentally occupied by Haitian Immigrants living in shanty towns. Haitians whom the Bahamian government have tried to rid the islands of for a long time. Controversy has been circling these areas regarding how to get rid of the Haitians so that redevelopment of these areas can commence. Perfect storm for an immoral cause. Think. Follow the money. Geo €ng¡n€€ring at its best/worst. [email protected] μp.

  15. Viewed video of the implementation of the solar geoengineering of cloud. If the world is a globe. That means, all of the shy will be filled with this chemical. The world is sky is huge. It's not just a strip of space you will have to cover. AA globe has a circumference of 360 degrees. How much fuel will it take to accomplish this task? Will the earth still have air to breath? The air composition is now down to 30%. We are burning forest in the Amazon and in Africa. All that carbon being produced. Can our trees keep up with oxygen production, while we burn the Amazon and the forests in Africa. Not to mention the destruction going on everyday with hurricanes, monsoons, earthquakes, mudslides, increasing volumes of cow manure generating Hydrogen Sulfide, Methane, Ammonia, and Carbon Dioxide. In high concentrations, each of these gases may pose a health threat to humans and livestock. So, how much less oxygen can we live our lives without thinking about breathing. Wouldn't many people die from a lack of oxygen and increased toxic fumes in the air?

  16. Lying to push a Eugenics sham will never go over well.
    Every articule,every study ever made public on climate change is a lie
    Not much creditabilty when everything you present to support your case is a Lie.

  17. They have been doing this for decades. It's called chemtrails people. It blows my mind that people are just becoming savy to this.

  18. Quotes from the high priests of the cult of climatology:

    "We need to get some broad based support,to capture the public's imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statementsand
    make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balanceis between being effective and being honest." – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
    "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."-
    Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
    "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."- Christine
    Stewart,former Canadian Minister of the Environment
    “The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on
    the climate models.”- Prof. Chris Folland,Hadley Centre for Climate
    Prediction and Research
    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”- Dr David
    Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

    “IN Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of
    Global Warming”

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
    pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
    changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.

    The real enemy then, is
    humanity itself.“ – Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?

    Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

    – Maurice Strong,

    founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

  19. Oh, by the way…this is the same Bill Gates who said we could reduce the world population by way of VACCINES.

    Geoengineering releases aluminium particulates, barium & strontium into the atmosphere, and what goes up…

    Bill Gates has shares in Bayersanto. Bayersanto has a patent for an aluminium-resistent seed.

  20. LET'S SPRAY ALUMINUM INTO THE SKY TO BLOCK OUT THE SUN TO STOP FAKE CLIMATE CHANGE! Geee, could we be poisoning the whole earth with the aluminum? Derrr, it doesn't matt bc we have to stop the earth from warming by .2 degrees, derrrr

  21. Cannibalism as recommended by the Swede and depopulating the Earth to control the climate explains why kids are terrified. I fell for the global cooling alarmism when I was child. Check out Tony Heller's YT channel for clarity on this issue.

  22. I'd prefer the big filters scrubbing the air over spraying a bunch of chemicals with unknown side effects into the atmosphere. These so called smart people are really stupid if they think this is a good idea.

  23. Already happening.. sad how so few people look up or have taken the time to actually read the science to comprehend it’s already taking place and to what price this will cost us and all living things.

  24. Chemicals to destroy Nature and its inhabitants?? Chemicals are currently destroying food globally. Japan has been dumping 200 metric tons of Nuclear Contaminated Water into the Pacific over a decade. Why don’t they try to correct that global destruction problem.

  25. In the last 40 years the planet has lost 60% of its wildlife populations and during the same time period the human population has doubled. We are currently free falling into the sixth great mass extinction of all life on the planet. Nearly 60% of the trees on the planet have perished. If you think our so-called media is going to inform us about these truly dire issues, you are mistaken!

  26. Smh if light is semi being reflected up then the same can be also said of the light passing thru this "cloud" I.E CREATING A GREEN HOUSE affect as the light becomes weaker what get reflected back up from the earth will only now become trapped under this reflective cloud sure feels hotter these days not cooler

  27. They have been spraying us for at least 8 years, WTF people, have you not been looking up?
    My solar home has lost at least 30+% of its gain in those 8 years, that is what got me looking up.
    I do not believe 1 word these NWO global shills say, & you should not too.
    100% pure BS

  28. The government has been jacking with the weather for over 70 years. That's why there is a insect apocalypse, & there are so many dead trees.

  29. Aren't they doing this already?! Lol. But what about when the particles come back down, just like the volcanic Ash that was used as an example?!!!

  30. This is a get rich scheme don't let the funding of it let you think it is out of concern and the intentional burning of the Amazon is one of the 1st major steps, it's just part of what will be government dominance of the remaining less than 1%ers.

  31. damn idiots. Sheeshe. Now isn't Gates responsible for this Common Core program from top to bottom? Look how well THAT DEBACLE'S going. I'm going to have a glass of wine now because I can't take anymore of these self appoint god creatures who actually think they're….well….our gods.

  32. if all people in the world not only Bill Gates will donate to fund technology that can save our planet. Then the future of human kind would be clear as crystal

  33. If we pay the Tooth Fairy at least 20 trillion, the weather should change back to normal conditions. That seems more plausible and economical than most "Green Deals" I've heard about. Weather change as a service is an uneducated fantasy at best aimed at stealing your money. Al Gore is already rich and owns beach houses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *