Listen now | Could this project win some battles while we fight the war against climate change? This week, physicist and engineer Ye Tao introduces Meer, the mirror rays project which he says could halt global warming, buying humanity the necessary time to combat the climate crisis. He explains how Meer could cool the planet while decreasing energy demands, and improving water retention and food resources.
Mar 24, 2022·edited Mar 24, 2022Liked by Rachel Donald
I'm glad that Ye Toa has a sobering realistic view on what is happening in the world (and sadly, what's currently happening in academia and the capitalistic nature of funding)
His philosophical take on humanity is really refreshing, he has a good heart.
Having said that though, I'm left feeling really conflicted with his proposal.
My main concerns, and the ones you have touched on:
The ecological (and possible climate?) impacts of introducing expansive reflective surfaces into areas where heat reflection didn't previously exist.
The resource cost for the production of these mirrors sounds absolutely horrendous!
Unfortunately, I find myself thinking that the time and effort involved pursuing this idea would be better invested in finding novel ways for humanity to exist in a much more responsible and compassionate manner, with each other and with this planet.
I'm instinctively sceptical about geo-engineering for all the reasons you mention. However, given the figures Ye Tao states here (2˚C by 2045, 10,000 years for CO2 to diminish), maybe we have no choice and Meers could be one of the 'safer' options we have. I'd be very concerned about the unintended ecological consequences though. No pressure to get Julia Steinberger on then!
Future climate CO2 forcing depends on 2%+ yearly economic growth which would require the same growth in fossil fuel use. It seems that oil production might have peaked in 2018. Is doubling the fossil fuel use in the next 35 years even economically/physically possible? Is 3 to 4% of a diminishing fossil fuel flow directed to making mirrors possible? (Glass and metal needs to be made with fire because if you heat electrical element hot enough, they melt!) Is the CO2 forcing required for the worse global warming outcomes possible?
Is it possible that global warming, however ghastly, is NOT the greatest risk to humanity but something else much worse than this is?
Check out what William Rees has to say about homo sapiens ecological overshoot. Human competition for the remaining inadequately renewing (water, food) and non-renewable (minerals, fossil fuel) resources might be a more urgent risk. Think Russia, China, EU, US, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea.
This is exactly the type of maladaption that will only make things worse. Think about how much energy, factories and mines you need to make this project work. Ye Tao says we need to live simpler lives that are more connected to nature, but 10 minutes before that he says we should make these mirrors at an industrial scale.
If industrial society is the cause of the problem than you cannot solve it by launching an industrial project at a scale never before seen in the history of mankind.
I'm glad that Ye Toa has a sobering realistic view on what is happening in the world (and sadly, what's currently happening in academia and the capitalistic nature of funding)
His philosophical take on humanity is really refreshing, he has a good heart.
Having said that though, I'm left feeling really conflicted with his proposal.
My main concerns, and the ones you have touched on:
The ecological (and possible climate?) impacts of introducing expansive reflective surfaces into areas where heat reflection didn't previously exist.
The resource cost for the production of these mirrors sounds absolutely horrendous!
Unfortunately, I find myself thinking that the time and effort involved pursuing this idea would be better invested in finding novel ways for humanity to exist in a much more responsible and compassionate manner, with each other and with this planet.
I'm instinctively sceptical about geo-engineering for all the reasons you mention. However, given the figures Ye Tao states here (2˚C by 2045, 10,000 years for CO2 to diminish), maybe we have no choice and Meers could be one of the 'safer' options we have. I'd be very concerned about the unintended ecological consequences though. No pressure to get Julia Steinberger on then!
I have a few questions.
Future climate CO2 forcing depends on 2%+ yearly economic growth which would require the same growth in fossil fuel use. It seems that oil production might have peaked in 2018. Is doubling the fossil fuel use in the next 35 years even economically/physically possible? Is 3 to 4% of a diminishing fossil fuel flow directed to making mirrors possible? (Glass and metal needs to be made with fire because if you heat electrical element hot enough, they melt!) Is the CO2 forcing required for the worse global warming outcomes possible?
Is it possible that global warming, however ghastly, is NOT the greatest risk to humanity but something else much worse than this is?
Check out what William Rees has to say about homo sapiens ecological overshoot. Human competition for the remaining inadequately renewing (water, food) and non-renewable (minerals, fossil fuel) resources might be a more urgent risk. Think Russia, China, EU, US, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea.
This is exactly the type of maladaption that will only make things worse. Think about how much energy, factories and mines you need to make this project work. Ye Tao says we need to live simpler lives that are more connected to nature, but 10 minutes before that he says we should make these mirrors at an industrial scale.
If industrial society is the cause of the problem than you cannot solve it by launching an industrial project at a scale never before seen in the history of mankind.