Skip navigation
21comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Ben Wilhelm

Apr 11, 2014
02:57

Fellow


1 |
Share via:
Stillsearchingstrong, thanks for your proposal, we're always happy to see enthusiasm and new ideas. I checked out your website and its obvious you've put a lot of thought and work into your plan and and have a lot of passion for the environment. The main issue were hoping to address in this years geoengineering contest is how to guide or regulate researchers as they investigate your proposal and others. Could you please develop those elements of your proposal further? Do you think that there should be standards to evaluate geonengineering strategies? Should their be ethical guidelines or safety rules to govern research in geoengineering? What about large scale testing? What might such a system look like? We come from the world of policy and have seen too many good ideas fail because the proper groundwork had not been laid for their implementation. We are asking inventors and thinkers such as yourself to step a little bit out of your comfort zones and consider how geoengineering can be undertaken responsibly. We feel that these governance questions have been neglected in this field and that a reasonable framework for implementation if we geoengineering is ever going to become a viable response to climate change. We know that we are asking a lot, but we wouldn't be pushing our contributors in this direction if our experience hadn't shown us how important it is. To get participants started we have collected several excellent resources on our contest details page (https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/resources/-/wiki/Main/Geoengineering+2014). Keep up the good work.

Tom Morris

May 14, 2014
01:50

Member


2 |
Share via:
From a layman's view the largest issue i see with geoengineering ideas like this one is that they propose changes that have a worldwide effect and may be irreversible. The fear is sithat unintended consequences may result such as when non-indigenous species are introduced into an area to controla pest species and then due to lack of a natural predator become more of a problem than the one they were brought in to eliminate. proposed sweeping changes to the climatalogical behavior of the planet must have an extraodinary amount of reasearch and testing to identify possible negative effects prior to large scale adoption. I think your specic proposal does anticipate the need for testing and acknowledges that there are possible negative effects and that is a good start.

Dennis Stelmack

May 15, 2014
06:31

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
From a layman's view we have been geoengineering our climate since the industrial revolution. We have created worldwide Unintended consequences that are already irreversible. My fear is if we don't plan for a plan "b" we are going to be caught between a rock and a harder place. We have known about climate change for 30+ years and have done little to slow or cut our emissions as a whole. Sure certain countries and organizations are doing their part however as these select few are cutting back the other developing countries are emitting on a scale that far exceeded our past emissions. With my idea to create an unbound screen in space the goal is only to buy mankind time. During this time we clean up our act, turn more to earth friendly energy sources and reduce the use of fossil fuels. My concept will be reversible where as most other proposed geoengineering concepts are not. I look at my idea as "a beautiful maybe" meaning it has a possibility of working. And with the proper testing I will be able to prove it. You can checkout my idea in more details on my website Cadclimatechange.com Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity was to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. He also said, we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex, it takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. My idea takes all of this into account, looks at the complex problem and solves it in a simplistic manner. We are more than capable of putting "dust" in space, the interesting thing about my dust is that we can remove it just as easily.

Anita Talberg

May 15, 2014
06:54

Fellow


4 |
Share via:
Stillsearchingstrong, we have seen that you have been updating your proposal, and that's great. However, as Ben pointed out, to be considered a contender you need to address the question of the contest. The question centres on governance. There may be some promising governance ideas associated with your proposal but you need to draw them out and make them the centre of your submission. Ultimately this may help you in getting investors to take your proposal seriously. You talk about undertaking research at NASA, perhaps outline how you would make sure this research takes into account concerns of all global citizens, the specific expectations of the research and whether you have criteria for ruling out options or designs. What types of environmental criteria are you considering important in the outcomes of your research? You say that your proposal could be undertaken in the US or Canada: how do you think developing countries might feel about this technology if all the research and development is done at NASA and the deployment is in North America? Have you thought about their values/cultures/fears surrounding your proposed research methods? Not considering these issues could create a backlash against your research and geopolitical tension. I noticed that at the end of your video you call for people to help you translate the contents into various languages. This is a promising idea to me. Are you suggesting a global outreach to ensure that your idea is acceptable globally? This may an interesting idea to develop as a way to design your research to minimise political risks. Perhaps you want to develop this idea further. You still have time to rework your proposal so we're looking forward to hearing more about the governance of your research than the details of the technology itself.

Dennis Stelmack

May 21, 2014
05:24

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks Anita, I went through my proposal and answered more of the concerns around governance. I tried to draw them out while still incorporating my idea. The reasons behind undertaking research at NASA is because NASA is recognized as a leader in its industry. I feel that any results that come from this facility will be accepted globally. When I said my proposal could be tested in the USA or Canada is simply because of logistics. These would only be for laboratory tests to prove initial plausibility. Seeing how climate change will affect the entire world directly and in-directly. If any one idea were deemed to be plausible then this idea should be put to a broader international stage. Here the idea would need to obtain 20% of the 196 countries in agreement to allow for a small-scale field test. If the results from this field test turned out to be a favorable solution to control Climate Change. The idea would need to be once again put to the international stage where this time it would need a minimum of 40% of the vote to be granted permission to deploy on a large full size scale. You are absolutely correct about why I am choosing to get my idea translated. I know it isn't going to be the scientific community that is going to make my idea happen, but rather the global acceptance pushing scientists to take action. I have already had interest in my project from political leaders from Canada and the USA and am on my way to getting my first celebrity endorsement. Anita can you please contact me through dennis@cadclimatechange.com. I have a few more things I would like to go over with you in regards to my submission. Thanks, Dennis

Anita Talberg

May 21, 2014
05:01

Fellow


6 |
Share via:
Dennis, You are able to contact me via the 'send message' function of Climate CoLab. I have assisted other contestants in this way. Please be aware though that I can only provide unbiased feedback and suggestions to you in order to remain fair to all contestants.

Doron Bracha

May 22, 2014
10:09

Member


7 |
Share via:
The idea seems interesting and makes sense. Just as we control solar heat gain by installing shading elements on buildings, perhaps we can decrease the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth by reflecting some of it as proposed. The technological and engineering challenges would be big. Just watch 'Gravity' to get an idea of what can go wrong with satellites: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/ One good thing about this proposal, is that it recognizes that this would only be a temporary solution, to buy us time to get our act together. Mankind should not rely on technology to reverse the damage we cause to the environment. Cheers !..

Dennis Stelmack

May 22, 2014
03:53

Member


8 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks Doron, If you wanted to read more about how a dust cloud in space would work you can go to my website cadclimatechange.com in the "about the project" section on the very bottom of the page you can see "Scientists have done some initial research and even published an accepted manuscript to prove the idea is plausible." Where it says "view paper" you can read about how a team of 5 professors from the UK have done research on this very concept. It is an accepted manuscript for advances in space research. Note: their idea is to crush up moon rock to make a dust ring, with their idea we wouldn't be able to control particle size as well as we could here on Earth and with their idea there is no reversing the process. It still makes the idea plausible, and when you substitute nickle for moon rock it makes the proposal even better. Thanks again :)

Chad Knutsen

Jun 3, 2014
03:56

Member


9 |
Share via:
But then what happens as we breathe in all the ionized nickel...We have NO IDEA what the long term effects of this would be...Chemtrails for example...seemed like a cool idea to control climate change back in the day...now we know that the heavy metals in all our air and water as a result are poisoning us. We need to realize as a species that our goal needs to be to ADAPT to climate change...not to stop it altogether...The planet is meant to warm over time, and cool over time. That's just the way the world turns...(pun intended). Rather than trying to stop the inevitable fact that the earth is warming right now, we need to focus of course on not contributing to the warming, but not be so delusional as to think we can stop the earth from revolving around the sun...Once we equalize our own environmental impact, we can start helping the planet get back to a natural state of health. This will come from planting fields of hemp, and replacing the concrete industry with a hempcrete industry. Shutting down all nuclear power plants, and traditional power plants. Switching to geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, and alternative means of powering our cities. Designing our cities in new ways that are more efficient and more beautiful. People living in beautiful places generally do not trash the place as much as those living in less inspiring environments. No this will not be an inexpensive process, but it will cost less than the alternative in the long run, on that we can all agree. end of the day, I am fervently against any proposal that includes the spraying of metals into the sky. the sky that we all breathe, constantly...

Chad Knutsen

Jun 3, 2014
04:03

Member


10 |
Share via:
i do see that your prosed cloud is in space pretty much. But I can;t help but worry about how much of that dust may make it back into the atmosphere. Or would the clouds of dust gather into solid objects eventually? For example, if the moon were blown up by something, it would basically reform itself in a matter of months thanks to the Earth's gravity...would a similar effect occur with these nickel particles?

Dennis Stelmack

Jun 7, 2014
09:12

Member


11 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
There are many advantages for my idea to be deployed in space rather than in our atmosphere. Inside our atmosphere it is law that every action gets an equal but opposite reaction. For example if we put something into the atmosphere such as barium and aluminium these particles will eventually fall back. "what goes up must come down....... But after a point things that go up do stay up." Simply meaning the nickle particles I am proposing to deploy are hundreds of km away from Earth. I do understand that once in orbit it is possible that some will eventually fall out due to the effects of drag and possible solar winds. But the atmosphere is also our shield from these particles. In theory they will actually burn up upon re-entry. This would need to be proven with an actual small scale test. One of the reasons nickle is the material of choice is because it won't oxidize or rust, and it doesn't have a magnetic memory. Unlike iron when magnetized, after being released it will retain a bit of its charge and tend to clump, nickle won't. Even after magnetic collection, nickle once released won't retain any charge. I wish we didn't have to move in a direction that needs action, however I feel that if we don't start to plan for the "what if" or the "plan B," we may find ourselves in troubled waters. There are many laboratory tests that I would need to do before any actual testing was to be done. What I am looking for is support to move forward. It is our responsibility to do our due diligence with a potential solution, even if it wont be deployed.

Chad Knutsen

Jun 8, 2014
01:06

Member


12 |
Share via:
Thank you for addressing my concerns so thoughtfully. You clearly have done your due diligence. Interesting how reminiscent of Zachariah sitchin's work your proposal is. Interested to see your project evolve! Great work.

Romalino Caraig

Jun 20, 2014
10:14

Catalyst


13 |
Share via:
Hi team, Just like in earlier comments, I'm quite concerned about the health impacts when these particles are inhaled. As you say, "Particles would be 20 - 40 times smaller than a human hair and virtually invisible..." Wouldn't these be as harmful as particulate matter? If not, what safety measures will be put in place to prevent adverse health effects, if any. Let me know how I could help. Regards, Romalino

Dennis Stelmack

Jun 21, 2014
03:15

Member


14 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
They would be a concern if they were within atmosphere, however being out in space these particles shouldn't be of any health risk. Tests would be conducted to prove this theory. Thanks Romalino

Anita Talberg

Jun 25, 2014
02:35

Fellow


15 |
Share via:
Hi stillsearchstrong, Some further comments to help you refine your proposal: You have received a number of comments from people who are concerned about health, environmental and technical aspects of your proposal. You have made an effort to address each of them, and that's commendable. The point I want to raise, however, is that this demonstrates that your idea triggers concerns, fears, worries in people. It is a natural human reaction. While you can address each concern individually at Climate CoLab, how would you propose dealing with a potential public, and subsequently political, backlash if your idea were to grow? In your proposal you say that you would: "·Inform the general public that we have a viable option, to potentially control, alt, and delete climate change. ·Obtain funding to complete tests at the NASA research center...." Is "informing" enough? How would you "inform" the public? How would people's concerns be managed? When would you decide that you have "informed" enough and that it's ok to move forward with research? Then: "Through a process of elimination the top 1 or 2 ideas would be funded though multinational government grants." How would this be managed? Who commits the money and in what form? What do they get in return? Will the control the technology? How would you deal with resistance from countries that argue for the money to be spent on mitigation/adaptation/poverty alleviation etc? Also, you say that: "Once its effectiveness is proven through these tests, the solution should then need to obtain 40% of all countries in order to deploy on a large scale." Why 40%? That is not even an absolute majority. Do you mean 40% of nations or nations that represent 40% of the world population? There is an ethical question there. Did you know that the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol is consensus-based (i.e you need 100%)? How would you ensure that the country leading the charge was not employing questionable (corrupt) methods to get votes in its favour to reach the 40%? And what forum is this vote happening at? Is it a special global meeting of heads of state? Or an international treaty? How much will these nations be able to discuss/negotiate/debate over the form and details of the field test before it goes ahead? In relation to the moral hazard you have argued that: "Some have suggested that the concept of geoengineering the climate presents a moral hazard because it could reduce political pressure for emissions reductions similar to a crutch. I think as we are advancing, we learn from our mistakes and even if we were to geoengineer we would still try to solve the root of the problem. Similar to if I were to break my leg. Sure I would use a crutch while allowing my body time to heal. However once healthy I would walk crutch free. " Although it might be outside the scope of this contest (the contest focusses on the governance of the research element), many would disagree with your comment on the moral hazard. Since there is no option for trial-and-error on this issue, how would you convince these people? What would be your fallback if you are wrong? Looking forward to your responses on these issues.

Dennis Stelmack

Jun 27, 2014
03:15

Member


16 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I have addresses the concerns partially in the proposal. However due to character restrictions I find responses are limited. I hope later the judges will also refer to the comments posted in this form as an extension to my proposal. My response to public concerns is to always keep the public involved. Even if the laboratory tests are privately funded all results should be made available to the public. I believe with the tests that I am proposing to conduct that the results will say it all. If I can prove in laboratory conditions that the abrasive qualities of this material are nothing more than a mere polish to shuttles and satellites. If I can prove that the material won't clump making potential hazards to shuttles and satellites. If I can prove that the material won't cause any disruption to the function of satellite signals. If I can prove that this material will remain where desired or be easily re positioned if need be. If I can come up with solutions for astronomers worrying about possible clarity loss. Than getting approval will follow. You said that there is no option for trail and error; to this I disagree. With my idea to Control Alter and Delete Climate Change the magnetic qualities of nickel give the option of trial and error. It give us the possibility of a "beautiful maybe" with the best result being a way to curb climate change and with the worst result being; collection like it never happened. A win win scenario in my mind and to the people who already believe in the possibilities in my idea. I said to inform the public I plan to do a crowd funding campaign which will fund the tests and start to inform the general public of my idea. Moreover, I am also planning to start a campaign in which I will be going to junior and senior high schools bringing awareness to issues around Climate Change and the repercussions if we don't act soon. I will start in Alberta, making my way across Canada. I then will do the same across the states followed by the rest of the world. Climate Change isn't about you, nor is it about me... it is about our children and their children. So what better place to start than with the ones who matter and the ones who will make the changes. I know my project is a life long journey, and I am accepting the commitments to making change. As Mother Teresa said "I alone can't change the world, but with support I plan to cast a stone across the waters that will create many ripples."

Dennis Stelmack

Jun 27, 2014
03:32

Member


17 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I forgot to mention that even though I have patented this idea "Magnetic material for Earth Climate" this is my gift to humanity.

Dennis Stelmack

Jun 27, 2014
05:56

Member


18 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
"Magnetic material for Earth Climate Control"

Anita Talberg

Jul 15, 2014
07:09

Fellow


19 |
Share via:
Hi stillsearchstrong, Just a quick reminder that the contest closes in 5 days. Judges will then consider all proposals and select semi-finalists. The judges will only consider what is in the proposal. They will not refer to information in the comments/discussion section here, nor will they investigate any websites or weblinks/urls. So please make sure all relevant information is included in the body of the proposal. Good luck!

Climate Colab

Aug 6, 2014
12:26

Member


20 |
Share via:
Judges: This is not a governance proposal. It is a technology proposal, and a familiar one (particles in the upper atmosphere). The only novelty is the idea that they should be made of nickel and thus "controllable" by magnetic manipulation. No evidence is provided that this is possible. More pertinently, no attempt is made to draw out the governance and political implications of having a technology which allows its owner to manipulate the world's climate with a degree of precision. Who could be entrusted with this level of control? How would we avoid its militarisation? How could conflicts and disagreements be managed? The few references to governance issues are unconvincing/impractical (e.g. a % of world population vote). Not on topic. this contest seeks ideas re how to govern and control climate engineering research. the proposal advocates a specific technical form of climate engineering. Anita and Ben: We really appreciate all the time you put in and your willingness to rethink your plan based on our conversations, but ultimately your proposal was still all about for geoengineering strategy and not the governance.

Dennis Stelmack

Aug 12, 2014
03:32

Member


21 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thank you judges, my intent when entering your contest wasn't to win the contest. It was to bring awareness to a process. The novelty of a process which is controllable is what I am presenting to the world. It is this ability to control that makes my idea like no other. I will get the evidence making it possible. As for the political implications... That is what your contest is for. My idea wouldn't be controlled by an owner it would be controlled by a governing body which will make decisions that will take into consideration the well being of all humans, animals and plants. Good luck to the proposals that are still being considered. I am looking forward to seeing who wins and the strategies that they will be presenting. Thanks Anita an Ben for your help.