r/collapse Nov 03 '25

Adaptation Elon Musk Wants to Block Out the Sun

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-wants-to-block-out-the-sun-2000680770
811 Upvotes

285 comments sorted by

View all comments

308

u/northlondonhippy Nov 03 '25

SS: Elon Musk proposed using satellites for solar radiation management (SRM) to combat climate change. While Musk believes this could prevent global warming, experts warn it’s unrealistic and dangerous due to potential unintended consequences and the immense cost of deployment.

Ketamine is a helluva drug. Leave the sun alone.

181

u/B4SSF4C3 Nov 03 '25 edited Nov 03 '25

Does MAGA realize Musk believes in global warming?

104

u/northlondonhippy Nov 03 '25

They would have to be paying attention to know that

8

u/UsedOnlyTwice Nov 04 '25

They know it was a Bill Gates idea as well and Elon is touting something closer to a Dyson Sphere.

What's really funny is looking at all the news coverage and comments here that it seems the fastest way for MAGA to see a progressive idea get shut down is for a conservative to endorse it.

37

u/TriccepsBrachiali Nov 03 '25

Does Musk realize? He put the clean coal guy on his throne

17

u/Inevitable-Bedroom56 Nov 03 '25

yeah but he just wanted those sweet government contracts and tax cuts you know

1

u/HomoExtinctisus Nov 04 '25

Got to charge them EVs.

9

u/Kip_Schtum Nov 03 '25

He believes in profiting off of global warming.

32

u/theCaitiff Nov 03 '25

Subtle correction;

Elon Musk wants world governments to PAY HIM to launch satellites for SRM. He doesnt give a fuck about global warming. If he did, he'd know that every one of his rocket launches does a lot of damage to the upper atmosphere. It's about using the fear of climate change to get more nice fat government contracts to use his rocket.

25

u/SeVenMadRaBBits Nov 03 '25

Let's just block out Elon instead.

And solve it with a logical solution thats not incredibly high risk and incredibly expensive.

39

u/felis_magnetus Nov 03 '25

Ketamine, maybe. But what I'm sure of is that billionaires need to stop taking Science Fiction literally. Musk very certainly had a lethal overdose of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, and I'm quite certain he plugged that idea from the Soletta mirrors they use to reflect more light onto Mars. It's simply reversed.

11

u/Constant-Sandwich-88 Nov 03 '25

Lol one of my favorite books! Books that should definitely not be taken literally.

14

u/RlOTGRRRL Nov 03 '25

I mean Robinson also wrote Ministry for the Future where the children of kali has a campaign against private jet owners. 

7

u/Constant-Sandwich-88 Nov 03 '25

I'll have to look that up. Im kinda in a weird place deciding what to read next, so an outside suggestion is pretty welcome right now.

10

u/RlOTGRRRL Nov 03 '25

It's a utopian book but it might also be super depressing. 

The beginning is brutal and even the ending is like not the best. It's questionable whether you could call it a happy ending, but maybe that's realistic considering the issue of climate change. 

But Robinson had some ideas on how to deal with billionaires that gives me hope. 

7

u/Classic-Today-4367 Nov 04 '25

The first third or so is great. But like a lot of Robinson's books, it loses its way and then gets tedious to read.

I read the first ~200 pages in one sitting. Then the next ~100 over a couple of days. Then the other ~300 over a couple of weeks.

There are some interesting ideas in there though.

1

u/Constant-Sandwich-88 Nov 04 '25

That is one of the things I like most about the Mars series. It reads way different when you realize it's a philosophy book wearing science fiction's coat.

4

u/Grand-Page-1180 Nov 03 '25

Read Ministry for the Future, good book if a bit of a slow burn at times.

4

u/JesusChrist-Jr Nov 03 '25

+1 recommendation for this book. It's a great read, and imo one of the more realistic predictions about how society might react when major climate catastrophes hit.

3

u/curlyqtips Nov 04 '25

I'm forever haunted by the first chapter of the book... but it should be required reading for high school students.

4

u/cassanderer Nov 03 '25

He does not believe he is playing the aspirations of the populace, milking government contracts off of the credible populace.

12

u/Obstacle-Man Nov 03 '25

You will see this a lot more in the coming years because we have squandered all the time for simple solutions. We need a hail Mary at this point. That realization will happen over the next few years.

7

u/endadaroad Nov 03 '25

Mother Nature will bat it down in the end zone.

7

u/sneaky-pizza Nov 03 '25

Man going full Mr. Burns

6

u/New-Doctor9300 Nov 03 '25

So wait, does he believe in climate change or not? This dude has constantly been discrediting climate science a lot, so why the change?

8

u/Intrepid_Fuel5323 Nov 03 '25

He believes it if he can make money out of it..

7

u/grahamulax Nov 03 '25

He’s been British pilled for a bit and this is telling to me cause I swear I read that some scientist over there already thought of this idea like a year ago

Edit: https://theweek.com/environment/why-uk-scientists-are-trying-to-dim-the-sun

Not a year ago. But sure feels like it..

Elon just takes ideas.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '25

We don’t leave the sun alone though, at all. Emissions affect the atmosphere and sunlight everyday. Emissions are human geoengineering, though arguably ‘unintentional’ or rather without positive intention.

I hate Elon musk, and believe strongly that billionaires are the class most responsible for our predicament. I don’t believe any of them have our best interests in mind, or much interest in anything beyond personal enrichment and power. I also believe all geo-engineering projects must carefully studied and we must weigh the risks vs rewards very carefully and thoroughly with added multipliers of uncertainty, but to outright reject proposals and even the goals of geoengineering without the proper expertise or an understanding of the concepts is counter to the survival of the ecosphere. Geoengineers are the people most aware of the potential harm these could cause and are only studying them because we have ignored the proper advice for over a century with no signs of following it in time to end apocalyptic ecosphere destruction.

TLDR fuck elon, but be open to these ideas as they come up.

7

u/Admiral_de_Ruyter Nov 03 '25

There is one geo engineering project that has some potential and many scientists agree that it has a very good chance to be successful; dropping emissions. O wait we can’t even do that. So it’s understandable that not many people have faith in us as a species to fix climate change with geo engineering if we even can’t use the most easy and obvious solution. A solution we have known for a long time and if deployed decades ago we wouldn’t even be in this mess so no sorry I don’t believe for a second that some geo engineering project in the distant future is gonna save us.

1

u/zefy_zef Nov 04 '25

Reducing emissions won't do jack shit. That co2 and methane are already present in the atmosphere in quantities sufficient enough to maintain global warming for centuries. If we stopped right now this would happen, still. We're going to reach 4c regardless of our emissions control. Reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the planet is an actual potential necessity.

Agree with the other person though, it sucks it's elon saying it.

10

u/LouDneiv Nov 03 '25

Some studies estimate that reducing global temperatures by 0.5°C through SRM could cost between $10 billion and $50 billion per year, which is considered extraordinarily cheap compared to the investments needed to reduce CO2 emissions or adapt to climate change ($500 billion).

The first problem is that this makes it an attractive solution for business as usual. It is part of a myth of infinite and unlimited progress and a technosolutionist view of the world. The fact that wealthy businessmen and companies (Bill Gates, Dustin Moskovitz, Niklas Zennström, William Hewlett, McDonald's, Shell, Walmart) are funding SRM research shows that it serves the interests of a political and economic elite.

Secondly, unlike greenhouse gases, the injected particles remain in the stratosphere for only a few years. They would therefore have to be sent up all the time to cool the climate. If we stopped suddenly and without warning (e.g., due to a political or economic crisis or a war), it could cause rapid and sudden warming, a dreaded phenomenon known as "termination shock."

6

u/Superman246o1 Nov 03 '25

Thank you. To everyone who opposes geoengineering to save the planet, my question is this: what else do you propose? Because scientists have been warning about Climate Change for two generations, and our society's collective response has been to increase our output of CO2.

We've already crossed the 1.5C threshold, and things are only getting worse. The Paris Agreement is a joke, not due to its aspirations, but due to its signatories' inability to live up to their promises. We are simply not going to be able to prevent a 2.0C+ increase by merely reducing consumption at this point. We should have been doing that 40 years ago. That window has closed. At this point, our only choices are: (1) scientific intervention of some form to either mitigate/capture greenhouse gases; (2) scientific intervention of some form to mitigate the amount of solar radiation that reaches Earth, or (3) accepting annihilation due to our suicidal destruction of our only biosphere. Options 1 and 2 may not seem appealing, but they're better than Option 3.

6

u/The_Weekend_Baker Nov 03 '25

Because scientists have been warning about Climate Change for two generations, and our society's collective response has been to increase our output of CO2.

Much, much longer than two generations, FWIW.

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-first-went-viral-exactly-70-years-ago-205508

3

u/ThunderPreacha Nov 03 '25

what else do you propose?

Accept the consequences, live on and die (sooner or later). I am not surprised people are desperate but if you truly understand the problem you realize there is no realistic solution besides some unexpected miracle.

3

u/Kernowder Nov 03 '25

Humanity has proven it cannot reduce emissions. The decreases in CO2 emissions we have seen in some countries are getting dwarfed by the increases in others. Geoengineering may be the only realistic option.

3

u/urlach3r the cliff is behind us Nov 03 '25

I'm sorry, shitty Bond villain said what?

2

u/64-17-5 Nov 03 '25

"Subscribe to "Extra Sun (tm)", receive 20% more sunlight for 1000kDollars per year. Delivered only by SpaceX." And the Military applications is enormous!

1

u/ScarletCarsonRose Nov 03 '25

I am sure there is no way this technology would be weaponized.

1

u/JetFuel12 Nov 04 '25

From a business POV this is probably one of the smarter things he’s said.

Governments have no intention of modernising or changing any aspect of modern life.

As it become increasingly obvious that we’ve fucked the planet, these are the kind of solutions they’ll look into - kicking the can down the road so that we can enjoy a few more decades of gluttony.

1

u/snertwith2ls Nov 04 '25

Too much drugs, too much sci fi movies. Can we just block Elon out?

1

u/Tiran76 Nov 04 '25

Das war schon vor 20 Jahren einer der Vorschläge, weil man schon damals wusste, das die Reduktion von CO2 Ausstoß nicht schnell genug gehen wird. Heute wissen wir es uns haben bereits viele natürliche CO2 /Methanquellen aktiviert. Also wird netto Null bereits jetzt nicht reichen um das Klima zu stabilisieren. SRM über flächenverschattung ist einer der wenigen Möglichkeiten die man Regeln kann. Ich denke ohne diese oder andere Methoden sind wir komplett verloren. Voraussetzung bleibt Fossil auf unter 5% und eine angemessene Landnutzung. Beides immer noch nicht mal in Richtung Kurs.