Follow this blog:
RSS

Another Bill Gates cure for the warming planet: Spritz it

By | July 27, 2012, 5:13 AM PDT

When they look like this, they tend to spritz, not swim. Bill Gates has similar ideas for cooling the planet.

A sun bathing glamour puss gets hot by the poolside. She spritzes.

Could the same technique cool down the beautiful planet Earth?

Yes, suggests billionaire Bill Gates.

He’s financially backing two Harvard scientists who will spray sun reflecting chemicals 80,000 feet above Fort Sumner, N.M. with the help of a balloon, the Guardian reports.

Harvard professor of applied physics David Keith, who is leading the project, wants to replicate the effect of volcanoes - known to spew earth cooling sulfates - by using sulfate aerosols to reflect sunlight away from earth and thus reduce the heat.

Keith says that the technique could represent an inexpensive method for slowing down global warming. Other scientists warn that “it could have unrpedictable, disastrous consequences for the Earth’s weather systems and food supplies,”  the Guardian notes. And environmental groups worry it could de-emphasize attempts to reduce carbon emissions.

The project is part of a larger “geoengineering” initiative bankrolled by Gates’ Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research, and managed by Keith. A Guardian article in February reported that Gates had provided $4.6 million to the fund.

The article also noted that, “according to statements of financial interest, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year.”

Mister Spritzer. Bill Gates provides financial backing to various geoengineering projects.

Keith doubles as the president and majority owner of geoengineering firm Carbon Engineering, in which Gates and Canadian oil sands billionaire Murray Edwards “have major stakes - believed to be together worth over $10m,” the Guardian writes. Edwards is chairman of oil company Canadian Natural Resources.

In addition to Gates and Murrary, billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson and Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstrom are separately backing research into geoengineering technologies, the story states. Geoengineering schemes deliberately modify the environment and can include removing CO2 from the air, as well as reflecting sunlight and other alterations.

As I reported here on SmartPlanet and in the Guardian, Branson like Gates is also pushing for a new breed of safer and more efficient nuclear reactors to help provide carbon-free power. Gates is chairman of TerraPower, which is developing a form of “fast reactor” known as a traveling wave reactor. Branson has written to President Barack Obama seeking help commericalizing fast reactors.

Photo: Swimsuit model courtesy photo from Becca swimwear via the Orange County Register. Bill Gates from World Economic Forum via Wikimedia.

More spritzers and billionaire climate cures on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
26
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+4 Votes
+ -
Do not forget the law of unintended consequences.
Mans history of messing with nature is not very good. This might be the most dangerous effort ever proposed.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036583_geoengineering_Bill_Gates_global_warming.html

I must remind people that as a global community we just spent 40 years and trillions of dollars to keep those same chemicals OUT of the atmosphere because they were found to be causing acid rain in the 1970s. Why put them back? If you must, than lets turn off all the filtration and lets go back to where we were in 1970. That would be cheaper.

It is also way too convenient that global warming scientists are now looking for another reason to get more money.

With the global warming community declaring that man made warming was confirmed, many governments have started cutting back on global warming research funding because of the bad economy. Why throw more money at proving the proven.

Now those out of work scientists claim they can FIX the problem they found. If you give them enough money.

What a scam. First pay me to prove a problem you did not know about exists and then pay me to make it go away.
Posted by Hates Idiots
27th Jul
-6
I feel the same way...
Posted by Paul D. Martin  |  Below your threshold
+6 Votes
+ -
Computers and scientific advancement.
Paul, the weather forecast alone could justify the much we spent in the space race. All the satellites we have above us today, making communication affordable, navigation safe...
Please do not disregard science and technology, because if humankind has a future in this planet or anywhere else, it will be because of science. Political decisions on what to do with technology may hurt us badly, such as denying that there is global warming and that if we just look the other way the problem will solve by itself. It usually does not happen like that, and unsolved problems change to bigger problems...
Posted by FuzzyIce
27th Jul
+4 Votes
+ -
Trillions of dollars? Hardly.
The cost of putting men on the moon was about $160 billion in today's dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program ). Not cheap, but we spent that much bailing out the banks in 2008. I know where I'd rather spend my money.
Posted by zackers
Updated - 3rd Aug
+2 Votes
+ -
Global Warming and "Dosing" the Atmosphere
No "Global Warming" supporter has ever been able to answer this question for me: if global warming is caused by human activity, then why have the icecaps been melting -- on Mars?

Also consider that anything you put into the air will be breathed by humans, and by plants and animals that humans eat. Do you really want those chemicals inside you, or your children?

--Leslie Fish
Posted by Leslie Fish
31st Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
It's not a scam.
Jeez "Hates Idiots", if that name's accurate you must be driven mad by self-loathing.
Mankind has determined that the world is heating up and that this will have detrimental effect on our safety and prosperity. If you approach the situation by assuming that the scientists of the world - who have a really strong concensus on this - are in fact a shadowy cabal who are conspiring to push lies for personal gain - then you can probably convince yourself that it's a scam. Interesting that you say that researching further into climate change would be "proving the proven"; surely that's only true if the effect were established beyond reasonable doubt.
But, leaving that aside, let's look at some of the other gaping flaws in your logic.
Your claim that it's "way too convenient" that scientists are now occupied finding a cure for global warming is completely turned around; if we're going to reverse global warming, we can either drastically cut our consumption, with the austerity that that involves, or we can find some technological solutions. So clearly governments and industry are considering their options for the latter; mystery solved.
Next, your allegation that "those out of work scientists claim that they can fix the problem they found" - that sounds unlikely; I really don't think it's climatologists, with their ice cores and their weather stations will be the ones to benefit from any such fix. I think there are other scientists - or, more likely, engineers - currently employed by major engineering firms who would be tasked with making such a system work. So it can't be all part of the same scam unless you're now claiming that the entire engineering and scientific community; those same guys who brought you the internet, the cell phone, the communication satellite, flat screen TVs and all those other things which you can clearly see WORK and improve our lives - are in fact a conspiracy of liars who deal in fiction to blackmail fat contracts out of governments using scare stories.
In fact, the more we look at it, the more we can see that the concensus of the world's scientists, the conviction of the world's politicians (who never want to believe anything which makes their job of balancing the economy more difficult unless it's REALLY serious) and, well, a whole heap of evidence makes a pretty convincing case for believing that climate change is real and is worth doing something about.
And that anyone who says it's a "scam" just has a problem facing hard truths. For instance, if they don't like being told they have to consume less, or pay more tax, or downsize their auto. Who are, in fact, driven by self-interest.
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
27th Jul
+2 Votes
+ -
wow.
You singularly focused on his assertion of a scam and left the science alone. Many scams are in play regarding "global warming" and all that's related to it.

Either way, global climate change is happening. As a society we should endeavor to pollute less so that we can have a clean planet for years to come; perhaps as contaminants are removed from the environment our situation will improve.

Any way you look at it, adding more chemicals into the environment isn't the best idea. Have a problem with chemicals in your _____? No matter, just add more chemicals until the first problem is masked by the addition of the next. Hardly.
Posted by CletusJones
27th Jul
+2 Votes
+ -
Wow?
I didn't address the suggestion of putting sulphur into the sky because I don't know enough about the risks. It sounds pretty risky to me, but then a lot of things which sound really dangerous can be safe if developed well (air travel, for one!). You can say my reply was off-topic to the article - fair enough - but the last two-thirds of HI's comment was attacking the scientific community as a "scam" and I felt the need to respond to that. I think a whole load of caution should be applied to deliberately polluting the atmosphere and I think that people's initial reaction being negative is entirely sensible.
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
27th Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
WOW???
If carbon dioxide is really the driving force behind global warming, the ONLY way to reduce emissions enough would be to return to a preindustrial lifestyle EVERYWHERE. That would mean a global population of somewhere around one billion. It would also mean that the 99% would live pretty much as subsistence farmers.
Posted by jimofil
3rd Aug
+2 Votes
+ -
And there are plenty of "experts" that advocate just that.
According to the experts, to "save the planet" mankind can keep our current standard of living but reduce global population down to a few million, or everyone must reduce their standard of living to that of the average Afghan. Neither option is realistic or likely.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
4th Aug
+3 Votes
+ -
Why Not Just Deal with the Actual Problem??
As far as I'm concerned, this is an INSANE idea. You have no idea of the results and ramifications...it can't be controlled...it could be disastrous. Why not just cut down on the pollution at the source?? It's like a smoker who keeps running to the doctor to give drugs for his symptoms of smoking...just stop smoking!!
Posted by mail@...
27th Jul
-1 Votes
+ -
The problem is we are way past the point of no return on CO2
The only way to go back, would be to completely stop drilling, mining, and use of oil, coal, natural gas, and start massive deposition of carbon in the ground, probably by burying biomass.
None of that is going to happen in the foreseeable future. The only way it would happen is if "clean" energy got so cheap it was free, meaning drilling/mining are a waste of money, and massive resources were allocated to the biomass deposition.
To put it in perspective, when all that oil, coal, and natural gas were deposited, yes there was higher CO2 in the air for conversion to biomass, but there was also higher O2 in the atmosphere, and Fe in the oceans. The Fe was fertilizer for the algae, and has since been oxidized by the O2 and deposited in rock.
Yes there are risks to sulfates in the atmosphere, but it's low amounts of high altitude sulfates, above the clouds, not the low altitude sulfates that come from burning sulfur containing fossil fuels.
Posted by kevinrs1
29th Jul
-1 Votes
+ -
There are risks and many are the same for burning sulfur containing fuels.
Geoengineering in general is a controversial technique, and carries problems and risks. Certain problems are specific to, or more pronounced with this particular technique.

Drought, particularly monsoon failure in Asia and Africa is a major risk.
Ozone depletion is a potential side effect of sulfur aerosols; these concerns have been supported by modelling.
Tarnishing of the sky: Aerosols will noticeably affect the appearance of the sky, resulting in a potential "whitening" effect, and altered sunsets.
Tropopause warming and the humidification of the stratosphere.
Effect on clouds: Cloud formation may be affected, notably cirrus clouds and polar stratospheric clouds.
Effect on ecosystems: The diffusion of sunlight may affect plant growth.
Increase the rate of ocean acidification by the deposition of hydrogen ions from the acidic rain.
Effect on solar energy: Incident sunlight will be lower, which may affect solar power systems both directly and disproportionately, especially in the case that such systems rely on direct radiation.

Deposition effects: Although predicted to be insignificant, there is nevertheless a risk of direct environmental damage from falling particles.
Uneven effects: Aerosols are reflective, making them more effective during the day. Greenhouse gases block outbound radiation at all times of day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)#Possible_side_effects

Many of these problems are why we fought so hard to control acid rain.
Posted by Hates Idiots
30th Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
Bill Gates... Windows... Blue Screen of Death...
Does it sound familiar?
Problem is, I don't think we can "reboot" once we screw up the climate by trying put back poisonous chemicals on the atmosphere. I think this should not be a task left for Bill Gates alone, because it would affect everybody in the planet.
Let's make sure we understand the problem first and try to attack the root causes, not just the consequences like this propose appears to be. Scientists in general use to have their ego in very high account, and that can be good if their playing comes right, but can also screw things really seriously when they are wrong.

Yes, we have a problem. Just look at the glacial melting in Argentina (South Pole) and Iceland (North Pole). It is very well known that volcanoes send a lot of CO2 to the air, but we can't deny humankind do it a lot too. Some people argue that those are cyclical events, but in the past the planet never had over six billion humans with all the cows and other animals farmed for food or had burnt the oil nature took long long time to create.
Some may wish the fossil fuel will end before we are too screwed, but nobody can be sure things will happen that way. So it is up to us do something, and it should not be experiences with atmospheric poisoning. Maybe cut the carbon emission should be considered after all.
Posted by FuzzyIce
Updated - 27th Jul
+2 Votes
+ -
Bill Gates
...isn't going to be engineering such a solution. He's advocating that specialists in the area do so. Also, he didn't single-handedly write Windows; he was Microsoft's CEO. So while you're right to have reservations, I don't think the reliability of one really reflects on the safety of the other.
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
28th Jul
+2 Votes
+ -
Valid Points
It seems that comments so far are in general agreement with the nature of the problem but with differing perspectives on what to do or what others are proposing to do. You all make valid points.
Posted by dcr100@...
27th Jul
+3 Votes
+ -
C'mon DCR.
Being reasonable? Really? This is an internet forum, goddammit. Now insult someone or just forget it.
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
27th Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
Every experiment presents inherent dangers...
We have been in the process of experimenting with the planet's climate since the beginning of the industrial age. Climate change is something that has been a constant with or without human involvement, but our increasing population and energy intense activities have added fuel for potentially disastrous change.

For all we know, we could be aiding the early onset of a glacial period as our climate warms at this time. We have no idea what we have set in motion. There are many theories out there, but the resolution will most likely take place beyond the range of our short life spans and at no guaranteed pace. This is more a legacy problem for us to work on. What we decide to do now will impact those who come after us.

Clear thought and responsible actions are needed as our population continues to increase, further pressing global resources. Change is known to be discomforting for most of us, but it is a certainty. We will have to adapt and change how and what we use for energy and better husband fresh water, land and ocean resources. We live in relatively small and closed system that really needs to be cared for if it's realistically expected to sustain this human load into the future.

If tough challenges do present themselves due to climate change, we will have no choice other than stepping up to the task of adapting and surviving as a species. The alternative would be unfortunate. We have the capacity come up with reasonable solutions when faced with adversity, especially when it threatens survival.
Posted by MaineBikah
27th Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
Bill Gates Cure For Global Warming
Bill Gates has too much money and not enough science going on to support such a ridiculous venture. The problem is they can't see the source of heat and this project will play with nature we have no business touching.

Bill, have you been to areas in Europe or otherwise where they white wash buildings? They do that for very particular reasons as it reflects solar EMFs and they don't use massive energy waste responding to symptoms. Air conditioning is refrigeration and a massive energy waste to building development being radiated by the same sun that burns our skin.

Weather is cold and warm air with water vapor, we need to stop the heat we are generating as well as leave ground cover alone, it is there for thermo regulation. Here is what the heat looks like with buildings generating heat close to boiling temperature. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=88

Here are 2 time-lapsed infrared videos showing solar impact first thing in the morning and the impact inside the buildings. http://youtu.be/EA3py3us5VM

There is a monster economy addressing the heat, the one Bill Gates is supporting is not addressing anything while further complicating climate.
Posted by Thermoguy
27th Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
Remember when
...there were fears of an extended "nuclear winter" as a consequence of an all out nuclear war between the USA & Soviet Union? This proposal is for an intentional, less extreme, and non-nuclear version of that. And really more practical than trying to persuade the people who set the parameters of public policy to forgo profits in the short term to avert global warming in the long term.
Posted by theotherwill
28th Jul
-1 Votes
+ -
SUNLIGHT IS INVALUABLE ENERGY SOURCE
We shouldn't waste sunlight! If we converted sunlight into clean energy, we could avert global warming and unpredictable consequence.
Posted by 1509144093
28th Jul
+3 Votes
+ -
That's a great idea.
I wonder why no one has thought of that.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
28th Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
Watch out the Earth is complex.
Yes unintended consequences! Do a energy balance and material balance on global systems to test? The energy goes somewhere! There are useful possibilities of planetary engineering but awareness of unintended consequences is top on the list. What about the changes in weather and greater loss of gas by expanding the size of the atmospheric envelope?
Posted by Altotus
28th Jul
0 Votes
+ -
Bill Gates and Sunscreen
I get very worried when the megarich start tinkering with these type of projects.
You have to ask whats in it for him ??
Is this a serious project or just more misinformation surrounding the chemtrails issue which is by the way making people sick. The aluminium readings in the soil have sky rocketed since the introduction of chemtrails from aircraft now cris crossing the skies ( in some areas blue sky is a rarity now) .
Finally Bill gates has already made it clear about his stance on eugenics and population control.
Manipulation of the masses through fear , coersion, or under the guise of we are doing it for your own good / or the good of the people just rings ALARM BELLS for me.
Posted by rodek
29th Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
Spritz the atmosphere with sulphur?
Bill has someone not told you that cyano bacteria which is alive in the antartic and also easily cultured and is capable of existing in the upper atmosphere for awhile before decending to earth and is non toxic to the environment is another choice? BTW that is how the earth first got rid of it's carbon dioxide problem. Does that mean I get a grant?
Posted by rjangelino@...
30th Jul
+2 Votes
+ -
Tree's - FFS!!
Why not use the original, and best, carbon capture technique to reduce CO2 like erm -- **TRee's**. With enough impetus behind it, how about an attempt to re-forest the Sahara/Middle East which would likely be more beneficial to the planet than James Bond Style Villan Tinkering with the Atmosphere.

Although the science on Global Warming is not conclusive, wastefully consuming resources on an unprecedented scale with an insane growth in global population means there will be resource wars in the future.

- Fuel
- Food
- Water
- Land Congestion

A move to safe CO2 free Nuclear for day to day needs, reserving Oil for aviation and chemical feed stocks, and a drive to arrest the increase and then reduce the planets population is achievable.

Otherwise in a few hundred years Planet Earth will be more like Coruscant from Star Wars, with no nature and all our food likely made in chemical factories.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
Updated - 1st Aug
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!