Slashdot Mirror


UN May Ban Blotting Out the Sun

Supervillains and Mr. Burns are among those to be most affected by the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity decision on space sunshades. Even though organizations like NASA have been looking into them as a possible way to slow climate change, the UN is expected to limit research into the technology or ban it outright. From the article: "The Convention may consider banning or limiting research into space sunshades. Some question their wisdom. A space sunshade would have a rapid effect on global warming and provide time to develop more permanent measures, they say. The technique has already received serious attention from NASA and other organizations. But others, such as the ETC group, an environmental and social advocacy group, fear simply blocking the sun is a bandage, meant to cover up the problem, and allow humans to continue using fossils fuels. Another fear is that geo-engineering, as techniques like this are called, could have unforeseen consequences on the weather, ecosystem and agriculture."

29 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. FOX News Headline by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    UN bans shadows!

    1. Re:FOX News Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      By "not on the same order of magnitude," you actually mean "one makes lies that slant toward my ideology and the other slants against it."

      Do a scientific study and you'll find that those others are just as bad as, if not worse than Fox News.

    2. Re:FOX News Headline by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, but the lies really are not on the same order of magnitude.

      I think that really depends on your point of view and your ability to recognize that you are biased in one direction or the other. Most people are biased. The important thing is to recognize your bias and make sure that you don't think things are neutral simply because you agree with it.

      The other thing is to recognize the difference between commentary and news. Most "news" stations are mostly commentary these days and they all have one primary goal, and that is not to deliver the truth, but to make money.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    3. Re:FOX News Headline by gknoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many of them (other than Fox) have gone to court to establish that their "news" is meant only for intertainment and is not meant as a guarantee of there being any factual content?

    4. Re:FOX News Headline by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do a scientific study and you'll find that those others are just as bad as, if not worse than Fox News.

      Someone did a study, and found that viewers of Fox News were much more likely to believe things that were factually false independent of the viewers' education level, political alignment, or other media consumed.

      All media outlets slant, but there is one that goes above and beyond when it comes to misleading viewers.

      Sorry if that goes against your "everything is the same so distinguishing just reveals bias" (aka the "yeah well everyone does it") ideology.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:FOX News Headline by Simon80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look, if all of the news organizations in the US are biased in one way or the other, that doesn't make it OK to watch Fox News. The right answer is to get your news from outside the country.

    6. Re:FOX News Headline by Sigmon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One would unlikely to find individuals both interested enough and unbiased enough to conduct a 'scientific' study who's results would be credible. I think the most telling aspect of the whole debate is the ratings of Fox News continue to climb into the stratosphere as the ratings of ALL other news networks and shows continue to dwindle into obscurity.

      I, for one, think it's pretty sad that a disturbingly large segment of younger viewers get their 'news' primarily from a comedy show (Jon Stewart). Almost every liberal I know who likes that show has an incredibly arrogant and condescending attitude about their supposedly 'enlightened' beliefs and political philosophies. They seem to feel the very fact that they are liberal makes them better and smarter than those who are not. It therefore becomes difficult to have an intelligent and cordial conversation with them as their beliefs are largely wrapped up in their emotional make-up. Many lack the ability to substantively debate an idea. They refuse to confront facts or opinions that they don't like and quickly trail off into calling whatever they disagree with racist, homophobic, bigoted and the like (Or in the case of Fox News - liars).

    7. Re:FOX News Headline by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, MSNBC and most of the 'liberal' media have shown time and time again that Fox News is clearly in the tank for the GOP/Tea Party/Conservative/Big Business groups.

      Are MSNBC unabashedly liberal? sure, that's not the point. The point is that Fox tailors their coverage and flat out LIES to their audience. My favorite example was when Fox was covering/sponsoring one of the early Tea Parties using Hannity. He is clearly heard off the air asking how many people are in the crowd and is told about 5 thousand. He then goes on air and inflates it straight to almost 25 thousand.

      Or the clear misuse of the Glenn Beck rally footage to bolster the Michelle Bachmann 'press conference'/rally. That was *not* just a video editing mistake. It happened again within a couple weeks.

      Shall we talk political contributions? When was the last time a 'liberal' mainstream media outlet contributed directly to one side of the political spectrum? Kinda hard to be 'objective' if your owner is personally funding one side.

      Shall we talk hyposcrisy? Remember the 'show us the funding' cries about the NYC Muslim Center? Who was that from? Fox and the GOP. Now, they say that asking for funding disclosures is unamerican when related to the Citizens United created groups playing a direct role in our political process.

      Sorry, Fox News is *not* a media organization anymore than K Street lobbyists are.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    8. Re:FOX News Headline by Jiro · · Score: 3, Informative

      Besides, we did find WMD in Iraq. They were only a few hundred old leftover ones and weren't the massive stockpiles that were were told were endangering everyone, but it is literally true that we found some WMDs. This makes the poll question like those poll questions that ask if witches exist--answering what they said and answering what they meant are very different.

  2. it doesnt matter cause we're already in the Matrix by yincrash · · Score: 4, Funny

    we already blocked out the sun 500 years ago to try and kill the machines, but they won anyways and we're all just blue pills lying in our pods

  3. Havent they learned.... by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That when you try to fix one problem, you almost always invent a new one? Prime example, using cats to get rid of mice....but than theres to many cats right? well lets roll in the dogs.. what? now too many dogs? ok lets bring in........ Some things are just better left alone

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:Havent they learned.... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Funny

      You've haven't been watching enough Looney Tunes. You get rid of the elephant with a mouse and the cycle repeats.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    2. Re:Havent they learned.... by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a bit of a rant, and I'm putting it as a reply to you, even though I don't really know whether you subscribe to this fallacy...

      Your "when you try to fix one problem, you almost always invent a new one" is folk wisdom and, as such, unconvincing. Creating new problems, even unanticipated ones, is not really a counter-argument against a suggested action. What matters is whether the proposed solution leads to a better or worse outcome than no solution at all. For instance organ transplants are rife with side-effects, risks, and problems. But an organ transplant is still often justified: e.g. when it saves a person's life, it's probably worth the downsides. Obviously it would be nice to have solutions without side-effects, but here in the real world every decision is about weighing pros against cons.

      Similarly with geo-engineering. Will there be side-effects? Yes, almost certainly. Will there be unintended and unforeseen problems? Yes, probably. Does that mean we shouldn't even consider such options? No, we should certainly consider them.

      Buried in the folk wisdom of "creating more problems" is some notion that we have no hope of predicting the outcome of complex events, and so we shouldn't even try. But taking a position on an issue like "Is it a net positive to put a shade between the Earth and the Sun?" inherently means that you believe that you are able, in fact, to predict the outcome with some confidence. Namely, you believe you sufficiently understand the problem and myriad of counter-balancing forces, such that you know that, on average, more harm than good will come from that kind of intervention. But, if you're able to make that kind of prediction ("Making those kinds of changes in this complex system will lead to outcome X, where X is bad.") then why is it impossible to make other kinds of predictions ("Making those kinds of changes in this complex system will lead to outcome Y, where Y is good.")?

      Put otherwise, if we were really in a state of complete ignorance with respect to a decision, then all we could do would be to flip a coin. By taking a side ("We're better off not messing with it.") you inherently agree that we can, in principle, predict the outcome of meddling. In which case, we should be able to mount enough evidence to propose a solution that, on the balance, we predict will do more good than harm.

      I'm not saying that this particular solution is a good idea. It may turn out that all geo-engineering solutions are, on the balance, bad ideas. But I dislike this defeatist "better not meddle" attitude. Either: (1) the balance of evidence says that solution X is a bad idea, in which case we shouldn't do it; or (2) the balance of evidence says that solution X is a good idea, in which case we should do it; or (3) we have no data one way or the other, in which case we may as well just flip a coin. The problem is that people don't acknowledge that "doing nothing" is inherently a decision. You may have other reasons for thinking that "doing nothing" is the better idea: e.g. it is cheaper to do nothing... but in that case just be honest and say "Since the evidence isn't persuasive, I say we do nothing for now, but if someone can mount enough evidence of X being a good idea, then I will support it". Having a generic "don't meddle" rule may make you seem wise to some people, but it's actually a lazy and fundamentally unscientific stance.

  4. UN ban Eclipse, Oracle rejoice by JonySuede · · Score: 4, Funny

    UN ban Eclipse, Oracle rejoice

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  5. Queue music... by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't want to spend the rest of my life
    Looking at the shade of a Satellite
    I don't want to spend the rest of my days
    Keeping out of sunshine like the mayor say
    I don't want to spend my time in hell
    Looking at the moon from Google Earth
    I don't ever want to play the part
    Of a statistic on a government chart


    There has to be an invisible sun
    It gives its heat to everyone
    There has to be an invisible sun
    That NASA has taken away I'm done

  6. Not thinking it through by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gigantic shades in the sky, with patterns of light coming through them. Just think of the sponsorship opportunities! Every time you look at the Sun, you could see an Apple or Coca Cola logo.

    Clearly, they aren't thinking this through. The monetization could be extraordinary!

  7. Reflective rooftops by by+(1706743) · · Score: 5, Informative

    Reflective rooftops have some conceptual similarities, but are somewhat less drastic.

    1. Re:Reflective rooftops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The UN should forbid them anyway, if they allow you to change the climate without reducing your fuel consumption. This is not about changing global warming - it is about sacrifice to show your worship of planet earth!

  8. Typical UN by jimbobborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But others, such as the ETC group, an environmental and social advocacy group, fear simply blocking the sun is a bandage, meant to cover up the problem, and allow humans to continue using fossils fuels. Another fear is that geo-engineering, as techniques like this are called, could have unforeseen consequences on the weather, ecosystem and agriculture.

    Wow, so let's block research to prevent knowledge. Because information is evil. And we don't agree with this line of thinking, so let's ban it. Hypocrites.

    1. Re:Typical UN by Aqualung812 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Then you need to work on your reading:

      The Convention may consider banning or limiting research into space sunshades.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  9. The real issue... by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But others, such as the ETC group, an environmental and social advocacy group, fear simply blocking the sun is a bandage, meant to cover up the problem, and allow humans to continue using fossils fuels.

    I think this should lay to rest any doubts as to the motives of some of our friends in the Green community. Their primary concern is to cause humans to stop using fossil fuels. The actual need to do so isn't strictly relevant. They'd rather there not be any conflict of interests, so rather than mitigating the issue in any other way, they'll continue to press their agenda.

    This should be seen as problematic. If for no other reason than it illustrates that the actual problem (dead humans) is secondary to their agenda.

    Food for thought.

    1. Re:The real issue... by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Informative

      the burning of fossil fuels has other issues, and blotting out the sun would only address one of them.

      Let's break it down:

      CO2 is toxic. Above a certain concentration, CO2 becomes a toxic agent.

      Sunlight is needed to safely remove CO2 from the atmosphere (via photosynthesis. Yes, the oceans can absorb a good deal without the sun, but this results in ocean acidification, which leads to biosphere collaspe, which leads to a spiral of death and destruction in the ocean-- resulting in a massive release of CO2 as all those organisms die from toxic water.)

      Continuing to release geologically sequestered CO2 reduces the earth's ability to eliminate waste heat into space as infra-red radiation-- EG, it causes global warming.

      Attempting to blot out sunlight (energy in) to compensate for the obstruction on energy out of our planet to regulate global temperature would make the current energy crisis look tame; Plants and animals would be dieing left and right from the reduced energy reaching the earth. this would slow the earth;s ability to re-sequester that carbon, and make a bad problem into an even worse one.

      The whole "We need to stop burning fossil fuels!" cry from the scientific community (and from your much derided 'greenie weenies') is non-trivial. It's like saying we need to stop dumping toxic waste in landfills, or stop producing biological weapons of mass destruction; the CO2 itself is dangerous. We need to stop INCREASING it's free levels in our atmosphere, if we intend to continue living on this planet.

      It has nothing to do with money, or some insane desire for everyone to live in mud huts; It's a desire for everyone to CONTINUE living.

    2. Re:The real issue... by thynk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think your arguments would have more impact on me if CO2 was more than 3 hundredths of a percent of our atmosphere and there were not billions to be made in the US alone on carbon credits.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    3. Re:The real issue... by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      CO2 is toxic at about 100 times the current concentration in the atmosphere. I don't think we could reach that atmospheric concentration if we burnt up every bit of fossil fuel on the planet.

  10. well...... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does any Nation actually listen to the UN?

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  11. Of course the UN opposes it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where are they going to make billions from letting their well-connected friends sell carbon offsets if we just build a giant shade?

  12. global warming as a tool by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Interesting

    if a sunshade were installed installed then global warming could not be used as a tool to control people and governments. I hate to bring up tinfoil hat topics, but sometimes I wonder if the UN has some dishonest ambitions when it comes to the topic of global warming. a centralized system of carbon credits and regulation to limit carbon footprints including mechanisms to enable inspection by some central authority seems like crazy conspiracy stuff, but it also seems plausible to me.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  13. Bribe Lady Deirdre by Y-Crate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's the only way to get the votes needed to stop this. We can raise sea levels and recover the Unity core while we're at it!

  14. Ban research??? WTF? by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Banning the use of such devices I can see... until we more fully understand them, and the potential un-intended impacts.

    But to ban RESEARCH on such subjects??? The whole idea of research would be to understand these issues in the first place. Since when is better knowledge of something undesirable (in a "free" state, at least)?

    Maybe it's an issue with the summary, and I should have RTFA... but I'm stunned that a global body would be so naieve and ignorant.

    MadCow.

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.