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.
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.
It is indeed conflicting! I think, if anything, it raises the very important point that our solutions need to be multi-faceted and complex and interlocking.
Hi Peter, thanks for your comments. There is actually a need to replace reflection from short-lived fossil fuel emissions to control otherwise more extreme weather events. Please consult this recent publication: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28537-9
I recently gave a presentation that comprehensively reviews learning on this topic. You might be able to see a portion of that on Jem Bendell's deep adaptation forum, once they update.
Resource and energy costs are within global reserves for relevant materials (glass + aluminum). Energy cost is 3% of total energy consumption. We have enough glass to theoretically cancel up to 1100 ppm CO2, not that we would ever get there. Each person needs 1 aluminum soda can-worth of metal per year to cancel their CO2 emissions.
While we concurrently work on ways to achieve maximal life satisfaction for the most number of humans possible, MEER recognizes that not being able to feed ourselves or shelter ourselves from >50C heatwaves makes the pursuit of alternative existence impossible, regardless of mental strength or will.
thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment, it's good of you.
I actually like the simplicity of this idea, and superficially it seems quite reasonable.
I also appreciate that you have a realistic view that this isn't the magic bullet to our climate woes, just a part of a much larger system of responses, so thanks for that.
I would like to see the ideas tested in real world, at a significant scale, both to see if the theory works as intended but probably more so to observe/address any shortcomings and negative impacts that may have escaped consideration.
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!
Hi Tim, I agree that is would be great to have Julia. I know her position is against all forms of geoengineering, and MEER. I still recommended Julia to Rachel in the hope of really include all points of view. It is difficult even for those of us thinking about these things 24/7 to cover all bases. At MEER, we value ecological protection as our top priority, and the available evidence points to the local and global reduction of sensible heat and evaporative water loss as having numerous ecological benefits and carbon sequestrations co-benefits. Please consult this recent publication on that topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27101-1
We always have a choice. Choosing for these geo-engineering projects is like struggling in quicksand. At some point its better to accept our fate, enjoy the time we have left and go quietly into the night.
When I said "we have no choice", I meant implicitly "if we want to navigate humanity past the current crises". The trouble with just accepting our fate is that we are damning the next generations, who are left to pick the pieces with diminishing chances of survival.
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.
Perhaps, that's why I find these conversations so interesting. I think the response to the climate crisis has to be systemised, which means multiple intersecting solutions which enable further solutions etc etc—an ecosystem of problem-solving. Perhaps cooling has to be part of the answer in order to get to that simpler life Ye states is necessary.
Hi Janna, there is no doubt that new infrastructure for mirror fabrication would be necessary. But the scale of the operation is a single-digit percent of the infrastructure that already exists that feeds this civilization. It is not reasonable to expect a zero-effort fix this late in the game. There is no doubt that a great reduction in the scale of this civilization is happening over the next 2 decades. The challenge now is to provide civilization methods for soft-landing, ideally back towards an agrarian civilization with a few key technologies maintained for ecological stewardship.
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.
It is indeed conflicting! I think, if anything, it raises the very important point that our solutions need to be multi-faceted and complex and interlocking.
Hi Peter, thanks for your comments. There is actually a need to replace reflection from short-lived fossil fuel emissions to control otherwise more extreme weather events. Please consult this recent publication: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28537-9
I recently gave a presentation that comprehensively reviews learning on this topic. You might be able to see a portion of that on Jem Bendell's deep adaptation forum, once they update.
Resource and energy costs are within global reserves for relevant materials (glass + aluminum). Energy cost is 3% of total energy consumption. We have enough glass to theoretically cancel up to 1100 ppm CO2, not that we would ever get there. Each person needs 1 aluminum soda can-worth of metal per year to cancel their CO2 emissions.
While we concurrently work on ways to achieve maximal life satisfaction for the most number of humans possible, MEER recognizes that not being able to feed ourselves or shelter ourselves from >50C heatwaves makes the pursuit of alternative existence impossible, regardless of mental strength or will.
Hi Ye,
thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment, it's good of you.
I actually like the simplicity of this idea, and superficially it seems quite reasonable.
I also appreciate that you have a realistic view that this isn't the magic bullet to our climate woes, just a part of a much larger system of responses, so thanks for that.
I would like to see the ideas tested in real world, at a significant scale, both to see if the theory works as intended but probably more so to observe/address any shortcomings and negative impacts that may have escaped consideration.
I wish you well.
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!
Absolutely. I was horrified by the figures Ye gave during the interview.
Hi Tim, I agree that is would be great to have Julia. I know her position is against all forms of geoengineering, and MEER. I still recommended Julia to Rachel in the hope of really include all points of view. It is difficult even for those of us thinking about these things 24/7 to cover all bases. At MEER, we value ecological protection as our top priority, and the available evidence points to the local and global reduction of sensible heat and evaporative water loss as having numerous ecological benefits and carbon sequestrations co-benefits. Please consult this recent publication on that topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27101-1
We always have a choice. Choosing for these geo-engineering projects is like struggling in quicksand. At some point its better to accept our fate, enjoy the time we have left and go quietly into the night.
When I said "we have no choice", I meant implicitly "if we want to navigate humanity past the current crises". The trouble with just accepting our fate is that we are damning the next generations, who are left to pick the pieces with diminishing chances of survival.
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.
Mirror fabrication can be powered by solar heat, which drops fossil fuel requirement by factor>10. Please consult this publication: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/sgt/gta/2017/00000058/00000002/art00001%3Fcrawler%3Dtrue%26mimetype%3Dapplication/pdf
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.
Perhaps, that's why I find these conversations so interesting. I think the response to the climate crisis has to be systemised, which means multiple intersecting solutions which enable further solutions etc etc—an ecosystem of problem-solving. Perhaps cooling has to be part of the answer in order to get to that simpler life Ye states is necessary.
Hi Janna, there is no doubt that new infrastructure for mirror fabrication would be necessary. But the scale of the operation is a single-digit percent of the infrastructure that already exists that feeds this civilization. It is not reasonable to expect a zero-effort fix this late in the game. There is no doubt that a great reduction in the scale of this civilization is happening over the next 2 decades. The challenge now is to provide civilization methods for soft-landing, ideally back towards an agrarian civilization with a few key technologies maintained for ecological stewardship.