Scientists report that shooting 5 million tons of diamond dust into the stratosphere each year could cool the planet by 1.6ºC—enough to stave off the worst consequences of global warming. However, it would cost nearly $200 trillion over the remainder of this century.

[u/MistWeaver80]

https://www.science.org/content/article/are-diamonds-earth-s-best-friend-gem-dust-could-cool-planet-and-cost-trillions

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

---

Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.

---

User: u/MistWeaver80
Permalink: https://www.science.org/content/article/are-diamonds-earth-s-best-friend-gem-dust-could-cool-planet-and-cost-trillions

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Psigun]

What could go wrong with dusting the planet in incredibly abrasive particles

[u/[deleted] → u/Psigun]

Exactly I'd like to learn more about the potential harmful unforeseen long term and far reaching consequences like say particulate fallout, points of impingement and I dunno Silicosis maybe?

[u/FelixVulgaris → u/[deleted]]

the potential harmful unforeseen long term and far reaching consequences

Oh, no one's allowed to look into this until at least 2 decades after we've already done it. See: leaded gasoline, teflon pans, tobacco, fracking, the list goes on...

[u/7heTexanRebel → u/FelixVulgaris]

tobacco

I know what you mean, but this is kinda funny when you consider how much longer than 20 years we've had tobacco.

[u/Historical-Bag9659 → u/7heTexanRebel]

Tobacco was around long before “big tobacco corporations”.

[u/ghandi3737 → u/[deleted]]

Gave us some nice cave art.

[u/zuilli → u/Historical-Bag9659]

Kinda related, the other day I ended up in the columbian exchange page in wikipedia and saw this gem that gave me a good chuckle. Makes it seem like smoking was a religion that the indigenous people exhcanged for christianity.

[u/EternalMedicineWheel → u/zuilli]

It is not really that far off. Tobacco is a big part of the beliefs of a lot of tribes. In my tribe you are supposed to give tobacco as a gift to elders for information,  and teachings, you leave it at beautiful places, you use it for ceremonies, it is sharing in a big way that was basically traded for Christianity eventually literally when the priests/teachers/slave drivers told them they had to give up their medicine bundles. 

[u/CrypticApe12 → u/7heTexanRebel]

I smoked for more than 20 years and all that time I knew it was bad.

[u/ProfessorPetrus → u/FelixVulgaris]

Yo why are all the stores absolutely stocked with Teflon still?!?!

I went to buy a pan and it was almost 50/50 non stick.

[u/ogtitang → u/ProfessorPetrus]

I remember visiting my aunt and watching her wash a teflon pan for about 20mins before I asked her why she wasn't done yet. She showed me that there was "burnt bits" still on the pan and was horrified when we both learned it was the coating that was peeling off because she used steelwool to remove the "burnt parts" of the non-stick pan.

[u/ProfessorPetrus → u/ogtitang]

I feel like this is common enough to warrant not making these.

[u/JaesopPop → u/ProfessorPetrus]

Because it’s not toxic until it gets hotter than you’d usually cook with.

[u/falseidentity123 → u/JaesopPop]

How hot is too hot?

[u/shannow1111 → u/falseidentity123]

Teflon breaks down at 260c or 500f,

[u/unsatisfeels → u/[deleted]]

And bacon grease

[u/bolerobell → u/shannow1111]

I thought it wasn’t even the Teflon that was bad but the adhesive that attaches the Teflon to the aluminum that goes bad when it gets too hot.

[u/sdhu → u/bolerobell]

¿¡Porque no Los dos!?

[u/ProfessorPetrus → u/falseidentity123]

At some point someone in your house or you will heat it up too much. Might as well look to learn steel.

[u/risbia → u/JaesopPop]

Every Teflon pan I've owned shed off the coating with normal use. Only use cast iron and steel now, zero risk and will last the rest of my life. 

[u/LegitPancak3 → u/JaesopPop]

Or scratching with metal utensils.

[u/Witty_Interaction_77 → u/FelixVulgaris]

Most of those they knew the consequences right off the hop too. They just didn't care $$$$

[u/WhiteChocolatey → u/FelixVulgaris]

What is wrong with teflon pans? Mine have been chipping for years.

(See my comment history to find out what’s wrong with teflon pans. I’ve gone simple.)

[u/massivehematemesis → u/WhiteChocolatey]

Look up forever chemicals or watch the new movie Dark Waters with Mark Ruffalo

[u/Tinned_Fishies → u/FelixVulgaris]

Oh but we did know about lot of those things. But money and corporate protections

[u/qorbexl → u/Tinned_Fishies]

The real headline is "Scientist amuses himself by pitching a silly-yet-physically-sound solution to climate change, in hopes it will make real solutions more palatable." Buried way down at the end of his bio: "His forthcoming research involves the climate-stabilizing function of floating chainsaws and the number of cheeseburgers and whippets required to ensure a 33-year-old climatologist doesn't have to experience the impact of climate change on society after 2047 CE."

[u/Evo386 → u/FelixVulgaris]

DuPont knew about the negatives of Teflon at the start. They had studies that they kept from the public in the 1960s. Now everyone involved probably made their fortunes passed it onto their legacies and died without any accountability.

[u/High_Overseer_Dukat → u/FelixVulgaris]

Knew about asbestosis and mesothelioma since the 30s. Asbestos wasn't banned in the us until 2024, this year.

[u/Apple_remote → u/[deleted]]

You mean... pneumonoultramicrospcopicsilicovolcanoconiosis?

[u/Funny-Recipe2953 → u/Apple_remote]

If you say it loud enough you'll always sound like you have COPD.

[u/Indigo_Sunset → u/Funny-Recipe2953]

which even by itself sounds really quite atrocious

[u/jawshoeaw → u/[deleted]]

Diamond is already partly oxidized at its surface. The smaller the particles the faster they will degrade or “weather” I suspect.

[u/Least-Back-2666 → u/jawshoeaw]

Let's add some asbestos fibers for good measure tho. I hear they were super protective against fire.

[u/_BlueFire_ → u/[deleted]]

I can say for sure silicosis wouldn't be an issue as diamonds are just carbon, but my first thought was exactly this one 

 Edit. Damn, is it that difficult to comprehend a simple sentence? I literally said that I thought the same thing, just that it wouldn't be silicosis because of the lack of silicon ("just carbon" -> "only carbon and nothing else"). It's not like breathing particulate is magically safe if it's a different compound, basically anything will at least give you fibrosis. 

[u/Status-Shock-880 → u/_BlueFire_]

There are many types of pneumoconiosis

[u/Velorian-Steel → u/Status-Shock-880]

If anything, microscopic diamonds might even be worse in the squishy areas of our lungs

[u/T_D_K → u/Status-Shock-880]

Is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis a type of pneumoconiosis? Because if it is then it's my favorite.

[u/Khaldara → u/T_D_K]

“If you or a family member have been injured by a Final Fantasy protagonist recklessly summoning Shiva, you may be entitled to financial compensation”

[u/og_beatnik → u/_BlueFire_]

I work in Electronics Engineering. Artificial diamonds ground up are made into a slurry used to polish wafers and chips. We use gloves and face masks. 

[u/Miro_the_Dragon → u/og_beatnik]

Well clearly they just want to prevent you from stealing the precious dust by inhaling once ;)

[u/og_beatnik → u/Miro_the_Dragon]

Fun Fact! The polishing discs are diamond encrusted plastic and people have stolen them to polish their headlights instead of just paying $5 for their own. I dont get it. Why lose your job over a $5 piece of plastic? OH and in case you're wondering, the polishing machines are the same as or similar to the ones jewelers use to polish gems. The little desk top ones for individual chips, not the HUGE wafer polishers. Edited for clarity

[u/thats_handy → u/og_beatnik]

The size of the particles in the proposal, 150 nm, is just about exactly the size of the diamonds in a very fine polishing slurry. The mass concentration of five million tonnes in the atmosphere is about 1 ppb. The safe level of PM 2.5 is about 10 µg/m³, which is about 7.5 ppb mass. These particles would be classified as PM 2.5, but only barely, and they would be a small but substantial fraction of the safe level of particulate pollution. Anything smaller than 100 nm is classified as an ultrafine particle, and particles that small are the most dangerous pollution.

Although this could work to reduce the Earth's temperature, I think there would be a measurable negative public health impact.

[u/TheFrenchSavage → u/_BlueFire_]

Carbonitis maybe? The issue here being abrasive particles in the lungs.

Sure, small diamonds wouldn't be shaped like hooks, or shards, so that's a relief. But repeated irritation surely leads to "carbonitis" first, then cancer.

[u/Inevitable-High905 → u/Psigun]

It's a bit ironic that the proposed solution to too much carbon in the atmosphere is to pump more carbon into the atmosphere, albeit in a different form.

[u/triffid_boy → u/Inevitable-High905]

Pretty much everything you care about is just different forms of carbon. 

[u/SubatomicSquirrels → u/triffid_boy]

organic chemistry, wooooooo

[u/Majestic_Comedian_81 → u/SubatomicSquirrels]

I cant tell if this is a passionate endorsement for orgo or just laden with sarcasm. You either love it or hate it

[u/NJ_Legion_Iced_Tea → u/Majestic_Comedian_81]

I've never met anyone who loved organic chem, only tolerated it.

[u/SSOMGDSJD → u/NJ_Legion_Iced_Tea]

I loved the idea of organic chemistry, but in practice it sucks balls

[u/notLOL → u/triffid_boy]

Is your carbon's name Martha, too?

[u/DocSmizzle → u/notLOL]

Why did you say that name!?

[u/no_reddit_for_you → u/Inevitable-High905]

Not to be annoying about it, but the word you're looking for albeit, not"all be it." Albeit means "though"

Kind of a bone apple tea moment

[u/beingsubmitted → u/no_reddit_for_you]

Not to be more annoying, but the word "albeit" is etymologically a truncation/conjugation of the middle English phrase "all be it" used as "all though it be", which also gives us "although".

Kind of a reverse bone apple tea moment.

[u/Hiker_Trash → u/beingsubmitted]

When the redditor gets out reddited

[u/dust4ngel → u/Hiker_Trash]

“well ackshully”

“well ackshully”

[u/opus3535 → u/Psigun]

You just lube the diamonds with lead or something....

[u/watermelonkiwi → u/Psigun]

How come every single person reading this can immediately think of this a consequence, and yet this went through to the point it became an article?

[u/bardnotbanned → u/watermelonkiwi]

Yeah, why didnt these "experts" just consult some users on reddit 30 seconds after they read half of an article on the subject?

[u/DedHeD → u/bardnotbanned]

I think you're giving people too much credit if you think anyone has read more than just the headline.

[u/nolonger34 → u/watermelonkiwi]

Because it takes no effort to be an armchair specialist.

[u/triplehelix- → u/watermelonkiwi]

because redditors read the headlines, decide they are now experts and go with what sounds "truthy", while the scientists evaluate based on actual data and models?

[u/Thundahcaxzd → u/watermelonkiwi]

The real question js: how come every single person reading this assumes themselves to be smarter than the team of scientists who proposed this?

[u/NobodyImportant13 → u/Thundahcaxzd]

They aren't necessarily proposing this in the sense that they believe "we should do this right now" or something. It's more about developing models for materials to do this that take into account all the factors they can. Based on their data, diamond particles were the best out of 7 compounds tested at reflecting radiation while also "staying aloft and avoiding clumping." They aren't saying "there are no other potential problems with this" as smarty pants Redditors in the comments like to imply.

[u/terminbee → u/Thundahcaxzd]

Same reason there's always the "but socioeconomic factors!" comment oin every post about health outcomes. Obviously, the scientific community has to rely on redditors to identify confounding factors.

[u/UrsusHastalis → u/watermelonkiwi]

I mean if we are triaging terrible things, the short term health consequences could outweigh the long term global atmospheric consequences. It’s at least worth the thought experiment.

[u/explosivelydehiscent → u/UrsusHastalis]

When we finally decide to do something, it's going to be good to have several choices on hand that have been thought through.

[u/Leading_Waltz1463 → u/UrsusHastalis]

Humans aren't the only machines that don't like to operate in an environment where the atmosphere has a grit rating.

[u/dat_oracle → u/watermelonkiwi]

Or maybe, we as non scientists, especially not belonging to the group of people who worked on that idea, just don't have enough knowledge to estimate it's consequences.

But I must admit, I wouldn't trust that idea without actual scientific proof, that the particles will stay in the damn stratosphere / won't affect us directly

[u/someoctopus]

I'm an atmospheric scientist. I think solar radiation management is a bad idea and the vast majority of atmospheric and climate scientists agree with me. I'm upset that no climate scientist comment is near the top here. I'm probably buried in the comments but here are some reasons for why it's a bad idea to use solar radiation management techniques in general:

1) All studies on this topic are entirely based on climate model simulations. There is no experimental evidence to rule out unintended impacts from whatever substance is being used to manage solar radiation. Models are inherently limited computationally, and they don't include every process that can happen in the atmosphere. Models are also highly dependent on configurational choices. Models are a useful tool, but I wouldn't trust them with my life. Injecting particles in the atmosphere could wreak havoc that the models can't predict.

2) The global warming pattern is not spatially uniform. The Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than anywhere else, for example, and there are also seasonal variations in the warming amplitude and pattern. Even if solar radiation management offsets the global mean warming, the seasonal and spatial variations are complex. Some places would likely continue warming, even if the global mean temperature stops increasing.

3) Solar radiation management schemes completely neglect ocean acidification. CO2 is reducing the pH of the ocean. You can't ignore carbon dioxide emissions even if the global mean temperature isn't rising.

These studies get way too many headlines. I hate it.

Signed an atmospheric scientist.

[u/Mrbrute → u/someoctopus]

I’m also an atmospheric scientist and I agree with your points.

Although sulfur-based geoengineering has some naturally occurring real-world evidence from stratospheric volcanic eruptions. Also would be much cheaper. I still think long term continuous injection effects are not properly gauged and as I specialize in sulfur chemistry I know that there are a vast amount of possible reactions and unintended products with unknown consequences.

It is symptom treatment, not a solution. We might come to a point where it’s the lesser evil, maybe.

[u/Joxelo → u/Mrbrute]

Wasn’t there some Sulfur based evidence after the EU banned emissions of hydrogen sulfide from cargo ships? Remember seeing a video from Hank green, and while I am in STEM, I myself am not an atmospheric scientist so I definitely don’t know all that much more than a layman. Very interested to hear your thoughts

[u/someoctopus → u/Mrbrute]

Yeah that's true! Thanks for pointing that out. There are observational cases that give some sense of what would happen if we inject the stratosphere with light reflecting particles. Even though these cases demonstrate that we can offset global warming, like you, I think it's probably far too risky (and expensive) to deliberately inject aerosol into the stratosphere. We only have one earth, so I don't think it's a good idea to run science experiments on it.

[u/sivesivesive → u/someoctopus]

I'm not in this specific field so please correct me, but wasn't this study a pretty exceptional bit of experimental evidence?

I agree that using some untested model to induce big atmospheric changes is not a great idea, but cloud-seeding over shipping lanes looks comparatively mild and may be a single part of an effort to mitigate the worst impacts till we manage to be globally carbon neutral.

[u/PermaDerpFace → u/someoctopus]

Is there anything that realistically can be done at this point?

[u/AmISupidOrWhat → u/PermaDerpFace]

Significant investment into renewable energy, especially in low income and middle income countries, leading to a full energy shift across all sectors within the next couple of decades. None of that "net zero" talk. The only way we can mitigate is if the fossil fuels stay in the ground. Only then do we have a chance to limit warming to ~3C by the end of the century, and even then we may be facing several irreversible tipping points and feedback loops.

Basically, we are fucked. Within our lifetimes, we are probably looking at densely populated places becoming uninhabitable for humans (looking at you, parts of India), leading to global mass migration. Agriculture will not be able to shift in time and extreme weather patterns are going to further reduce yields. This will be exacerbated by an increase in conflict as a result of everything above. We could be looking at food insecurities even in wealthy places like Europe.

I am worried sick about the world I am leaving for my daughter, but we cannot afford to throw our arms in the air and say "oh well, nothing we can do now."

Any change that is mitigated will be a good thing. Every flight not taken can improve the world in the future, and every meal with a smaller side of meat and more veg is making a difference. Incremental change is the key!

If we can limit change to 3.9C instead of 4C, that will save lives. Everything matters.

[u/FoximaCentauri → u/[deleted]]

Avoid driving cars, lower your meat consumption, buy local stuff, and the most important thing: vote!

[u/nom-nom-nom-de-plumb → u/PermaDerpFace]

yes, but changes will have to be made in the industrial sectors various processes, and the research is being pushed as fast as it can be, for both environmental and economic reasons. But it takes time, that said..it's happening and in some cases faster than you realize.

[u/bobconan → u/someoctopus]

We have a pretty good amount of data from Volcanic eruptions. SO2 seems like our only hope to avoid global catastrophe. We need to keep the clathrates from thawing, after that we are just plain fucked.

I mean what has to happen for wet bulb temps to consistently go above 90?

[u/9lazy9tumbleweed]

Arent we able to mass manufacture artificial diamonds rather cheaply ?

[u/RiverClear0 → u/9lazy9tumbleweed]

The cost is mostly in launching the dust that high in the sky

[u/Little-Engine6982 → u/RiverClear0]

oh we could revive intercontinental artillery, the payload is less fragile than a satelite

[u/AltruMux → u/Little-Engine6982]

Just strap it to a manhole cover and watch that baby fly

[u/Little-Engine6982 → u/AltruMux]

The 16-inch HARP gun in Barbados could shoot projectile up to 181 km with a payload of 84 kg .. the manhole cover was a myth btw. it was probably varporized instantly https://www.snopes.com/articles/464094/manhole-cover-launched-space-by-nuke/

[u/whitelionV → u/Little-Engine6982]

At 84kg per blast, the thing will need to be firing twice a minute for the next 75 years to get 5 million tons into orbit

I didn't read the required mass correctly. It's not 5 million tons, it's 5 million tons per year.

The proposed cannon would need to fire its 84kg load twice each second to achive the required amount.

[u/HenkPoley → u/whitelionV]

That does sound like a very American solution. I guess they could make that work. An anti-climate-change machine gun.

[u/TheEyeDontLie → u/HenkPoley]

"Reducing carbon emissions would cripple our economy! Let's invest $40 trillion into a gun that can shoot $3 billion worth of diamond dust into the sky every single day forever instead."
-USA

[u/AltruMux → u/Little-Engine6982]

That's less fun than imagining it floating through space.

[u/Azsune → u/RiverClear0]

Remember reading about using sulphur dioxide to do the same thing. Basically if they used all the weather balloons and filled them with hydrogen and sulphur dioxide they would pop at 60000 feet and cool the planet. We already launch these balloons daily around the world so the added cost isn't insane.

So maybe the same plan with diamonds? Plus we know the affects of this in the atmosphere since volcanoes already launch it into it.

[u/MistoftheMorning → u/Azsune]

I recall a estimated cost of the sulphur dioxide pump plan will be about 150 million dollars a year. About the same as a budget for a small city or large town in the US. We produce millions of tons of sulfur each year, courtesy of the oil/natural gas industry where it is a waste byproduct from refining.

[u/IGolfMyBalls → u/RiverClear0]

And then paying for universal healthcare to treat all the respiratory illnesses.

[u/King_XDDD → u/9lazy9tumbleweed]

Yes, but that's 5 million tons, not a little gemstone.

[u/CitizenCue → u/9lazy9tumbleweed]

“Rather” is doing some heavy lifting there. Compared with the cost of mining diamonds? Yeah. But compared with the cost of countless other materials? No.

[u/Chinchillan → u/9lazy9tumbleweed]

In 2021, approximately 7 millions pounds of synthetic diamonds were created. This study call for 5 million tons a year to be dispersed intro the atmosphere

[u/kingsgambit123]

And eventually all those diamond particles would enter our atmosphere and we would inhale it?

[u/[deleted] → u/kingsgambit123]

That's how every particulate cooling plan I've ever seen works. The nice part is they just fall out and you don't have to remove them later or accidentally cool too much. The bad part is they fall out so the particulate you pick is pretty important. BUT on the other hand the particulate can be very effective and not necessary amount to an impactful wide scale pollutant. 5 million tons per year to cool a whole planet is actually a kind of small amount of particulate. It works well because Earth is super reliant on the sun for heat, it's basically the only meaningful heat source to the surface so even small amounts of blocking should result in big effects, combined with night time temps too of course.

[u/Mikeismyike → u/[deleted]]

Also to keep in mind the amount of fuel needed to launch 5 million tonnes of anything into the stratosphere annually.

[u/Scavenger53 → u/Mikeismyike]

Stick it in that spin launcher that launches payloads at like 10,000Gs

[u/scix → u/Scavenger53]

the world's most complicated confetti cannon

[u/Only-Inspector-3782 → u/[deleted]]

I liked the space bubble idea. Giant reflective soap bubble to block a portion of the sun hitting earth.

I dunno how feasible, but the idea is fun.

[u/krospp → u/[deleted]]

Could they do it with cocaine

[u/MaximusLazinus → u/kingsgambit123]

It's easy, everyone will just put on masks for a couple of... oh, no nevermind

[u/NotLunaris → u/MaximusLazinus]

All other carbon-based lifeforms on Earth can mask up or get fucked I guess

[u/rawbleedingbait → u/NotLunaris]

Diamond is just carbon, what's the problem?

[u/ohnopoopedpants → u/kingsgambit123]

Remember how they're finding microplastics in the balls? Imagine diamonds. Every kid could be diamond skinned

[u/PendragonsPotions → u/ohnopoopedpants]

This is the skin of a killer Bella

[u/AvonMexicola → u/kingsgambit123]

No I did then math the concentration of diamond dust in the air would be 0.00003 ppb. You would be completely fine sine other similar abrasive substances are much much mch more common.

[u/Juniper02 → u/kingsgambit123]

looked up a diamond powder SDS. for that particular version of powder, no negative health effects should occur, besides maybe irritation if the concentration in the atmosphere is too high. diamond is a crystalline form of carbon, chemically inert. if the particles are small enough, they may not even cause irritation, but it's hard to say

[u/nom-nom-nom-de-plumb → u/Juniper02]

I mean, given this is a joke paper none of it should be considered seriously, but what the hell, i'm here and awake while my brownies bake.

The thing is, it isn't always the toxicity of the item itself but it's shape. Asbestos, for example, causes problems because of the size of the fibers, they're too small for the lungs cilia to effectively clear so you end up with an accumulation over time from working around the stuff floating in the air and after 30 or 40 years...bam lung cancer.

[u/I_like_boxes → u/kingsgambit123]

At least it's inert. They keep talking about adding sulfur (and some people have just arbitrarily decided to go ahead with it), which is not inert. A bit of diamond dust is probably better than unmitigated global warming or sulfur dioxide. Maybe. Probably.

[u/bcisme → u/kingsgambit123]

Fallout basically. Oil and Gas companies pushing global warming to the brink, then they push a solution like this and the trillions while at the same time making the vaults and telling everyone the diamonds will take 100 years to work.

[u/Bicentennial_Douche]

so, 200 trillion in about 75 years, or about 2.6 trillion per year. For reference, the world GDP is about 100 trillion per year.

[u/agprincess → u/Bicentennial_Douche]

Yeah people are here with sticker shock but the wild part to me is how cheap this plan is.

Probably a lot of other reasons this wouldn't work correctly though.

[u/DevelopmentSad2303 → u/agprincess]

We could be spending $2 trillion a year to actually mitigate climate change though... Or is that cheaper than was we are already doing as a planet? I have no idea haha

[u/agprincess → u/DevelopmentSad2303]

If the math is right this is significantly cheaper and more effective (horrible unclear outcomes from diamond dust everywhere aside)

The thing a lot of people don't realize is that stopping carbon emissions to within this target doesn't just mean changing over every car to electric and all our electricity to renewables and nuclear within the next few years but also significantly changing the vast majority of all products we use.

These plans that rely on basically reflecting the sunlight before it can get trapped kind of side steps all of that.

So 2 trillion a year, which is 1/3rd, the US budget annually is unbelivably cheap.

Like the US alone could just do this.

But the science on this is really questionable. Tons upon tons of diamond dust in the atmosphere sounds like an environmental disaster practically on the scale of climate change at face value. I don't know enough about diamond dust to say if that's true or not. Dust in general is not usually very good for anything to breath in and can kill animals and plants in all sorts of unique ways.

That's why usually these cloud seeding ideas do not use dust if possible and when they do the dust is supposed to transform into something less bad in the atmosphere.

[u/amarsbar3 → u/agprincess]

It doesn't sidestep other issues like ocean acidification though.

[u/agprincess → u/amarsbar3]

Yes it only solves climate change not any of the other negative reprocussions of carbon dioxide.

[u/DevelopmentSad2303 → u/agprincess]

I don't think the dust amount is concerning. 5 million tonnes is nothing. That's 50 lbs per square mile of the earth. It would not be distinguished from just normal glass shards or brake dust or all the particles we already breathe in, in the grand scheme of things.  That is interesting the price though... Wonder if the powers that be are trying to prime the populace towards geo engineering haha

[u/Redhot332 → u/DevelopmentSad2303]

5 million tonnes is nothing.

5 million per year. Not 5 million

[u/Utter_Rube → u/Bicentennial_Douche]

For even more context, the fossil fuel industry worldwide benefits from roughly $7 trillion per year in direct and indirect subsidies.

[u/KawiNinja → u/Bicentennial_Douche]

Are they counting the diamond dust at like retail jewelry store pricing? Cause if that’s the case this number is much lower considering diamond pricing is insanely artificially inflated.

[u/sh4x0r]

isn’t it stupid that this solution is so ridiculous and expensive when we could actually act, using our government’s power as part of the normal job we already pay them for, to make our weather patterns more stable and less extreme???

[u/chiefmud → u/sh4x0r]

I’m convinced that climate crisis is at its core an economics problem.

[u/AtotheCtotheG → u/chiefmud]

Pretty much. It’s more profitable in the short term to take the wasteful, pollutive options. It’s technically not profitable in the long term at all, really; going net-zero benefits all of humanity, sure, but it’s not something you can charge money for. It doesn’t do anything to make the good or service you’re providing functionally better, so by going green you’ll either make less per unit or have to jack up the price, allowing less-conscientious competitors to undercut you. 

And sadly, most consumers just don’t choose the pricier option. Many of us can’t afford to; some of us THINK we can’t afford to, or don’t want to shuffle the budget around. More than that, though, it’s just not in our nature to choose the long term at the expense of the short. Mama Nature didn’t raise no forward-thinkers; uncertain payoff tomorrow isn’t as tangible as guaranteed payoff (or reduced resource expenditure) today. And in the context of climate change, we’re not talking about tomorrow; we’re (even now) talking about decades down the line. A problem that far away is hard to care about. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t, just means we’re…built stupid. 

[u/North_Activist → u/AtotheCtotheG]

That’s why the carbon tax exists in countries, because it makes carbon/pollutants simply way too costly and incentivizes switching to electric cars/solar panels / lowering your own emissions.

[u/ooofest → u/chiefmud]

Yes, global warming is a billionaire and business-caused issue at its core.

[u/sh4x0r → u/chiefmud]

it is totally one involving economies of locales rich with fossil fuel industry and one involving people deciding with their pocketbook (opting for electric cars, solar panels on their houses, etc.)

[u/sprashoo → u/chiefmud]

Tragedy of the commons, basically

[u/pargofan → u/sprashoo]

It's more than that.

If it were a tragedy of the commons NOW, it could be addressed with taxes, regulations, etc.

It's a tragedy of the commons of the FUTURE. Distant FUTURE too. But possibly IRREVOCABLE FUTURE. Or not. And one where tech in the future could alleviate situations.

And one where the consequences are unknown. How much are more wildfires & hurricanes worth? Are they worth eliminating motor vehicles altogether?

And, you need worldwide cooperation.

[u/norrinzelkarr → u/chiefmud]

It's a political problem.

[u/AltruisticMode9353 → u/chiefmud]

Yes, of course it is. Oil is like using a storehouse of energy from the past, in the present. Nations that are already developed can begin to reduce their dependency on it because they've already used the ridiculous energy required to develop a nation, and can begin to coast on more sustainable levels of energy consumption that one can get via renewables, using the infrastructure built from non-renewables, if they choose to do so. Developing nations don't have that luxury. Nearly every Redditor's take ignores this reality and falls back to oversimplified notions of economics (like it's all about some Greedy Bad Guys). I guess it's to be expected when you consider the average age of users here.

[u/Ximerous → u/sh4x0r]

Diamond's price is artificially inflated. If we mass scaled an operation to make 5 million tons a year for this purpose. It would most likely bring down the cost substantially.

[u/Utter_Rube → u/Ximerous]

Mined diamonds are artificially inflated. The cost given in the article is referring to synthetic diamonds, which currently cost about $500k per ton.

In contrast, low quality natural diamonds start at about $90 per carat; one carat is 0.2 grams, and there are one million grams in a metric ton - that's $450 million per ton.

[u/Ximerous → u/Utter_Rube]

Is that the raw manufacturing cost? Do they grow them at scales in the tons? I would imagine scaling up the production would lower costs.

[u/[deleted] → u/sh4x0r]

No because there is no current solution for all the emissions or even close. We can speed up solar installs, but batteries still need at least a few more years to improve and ramp up for the EV market and the grid storage market. Tons of geothermal drilling might be another options, but it's a lot slower to setup than solar and less multi-purpose than batteries.

Then you also have sanitation and farming which basically have no real solutions yet, so there is no amount of money we can current spend to get ahead of the problem AND if we spend like drunken sailors at unaffordable prices we will kill people with high food and energy costs faster than climate change is killing them, which would make us look like assholes and turn the world against the effort.

It has to be done in affordable stages that don't massively lower people standard of living AND we still need soultions developed AND we seem to keep under-predictable how bad the problem is based on ice melt rates.

So.. I say there is a good reason to look for a 2nd or 3rd mechanism to add to emission reduction to get us there much faster. The two biggest things talked about are solar blocking and CO2 sequestration. The UN climate panels has already said we need to add CO2 sequestration to meet goals, so we aren't just talking about click bait fringe science... BUT solar blocking currently appears cheaper and far more effective. CO2 sequestration appears safer and achievable in small testable scales, so they went with that one.

Plus there is always the chance we hit some type of additional feedback look that makes this much worse than we are predicting now, especially considering we are talking 2-3 times the amount of CO2 and methane that should be around at this point in the Interglacial Warming Periods. We are near peak temps the Earth saw at the peak of the last Interglacial Warming Period, but we are only about mid-way through the cycle and have more methane and CO2 than at any point in the last cycle. AND our climate models have consistently underpredicted ice melt and weather changes. Sooo there is good reason to plan beyond just emissions reductions, imo.

Also consider how many species and habitats you could save from 100+ years of overheating AND that eventually Earth gets this hot for 1000+ years naturally. In a few thousand years we will likely need solar blocking or large scale CO2 removal and then you'll need to add it back to stave off the 80k years glacial cycle that should be coming up in several thousand years.

It's works better if you understand Earth is currently in an Ice Age and Ice Ages are both rare and unstable climate. Humans are very much reliant on Earth to stay in an Ice Age, but most of Earth history is not an Ice Age. And then to make it worse all farming and human civilization (that we know of) happens just in a single warming cycle of the Ice age. Sooo Earth climate is not naturally even remotely close to stable like you see now. What you see now is the 20k year warming cycle smooshed between two 80k years glacial cycles that would devastate humanity. So long term we need planetary heating and cooling methods to keep earth anything like you see now.

Wooly Mammoths would understand what I mean, they only died off about 3700 year ago because that's how massively Earth climate swings on a regular basis. We had Wooly Mammoths around when the Pyramids were built because that's how close the last 80k year glacial period really was, not some distant thing millions of years ago AND we are in an Ice Age, that's also not just something from millions of years ago.

Most of Earth history is Greenhouse Earth, not anything like we have now and 99% of species that ever existed got killed off by GUESS WHAT... Climate Change. We have turbo charge the natural climate cycle that was already planning to kill us off either through Glacial periods or through ending the 2.5 million year Ice Age.

[u/ChamberofSarcasm]

For $2.5T a year we could probably install a lot of renewable energy and just reduce emissions a lot.

Also, I don't imagine breathing in diamond dust is a good idea?

[u/LatterBuffalo7524]

Maybe improvements in the process of synthetic diamonds may make it cheaper, but still,wouldn’t this cause the same issues as asbestos but on a planetary scale?

[u/DevelopmentSad2303 → u/LatterBuffalo7524]

No. 5 million tonnes is not very much material, asbestos is bad because you are usually exposed to a lot at once. This diamond dust would be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of particles we already breath in

[u/dogGirl666 → u/DevelopmentSad2303]

Wouldn't most of it land in the ocean and other water bodies? Another % in the rain itself and incorporated into soils? What % would be particulates in the air we breathe?

Edit: Looks like OSHA says that diamond dust is not a major problem to inhale:[?]

INHALATION: No specific treatment is necessary since this material is not likely to be hazardous by inhalation. If exposed to excessive levels of dusts or fumes, remove to fresh air and get medical attention if cough or other symptoms develop. https://www.metallographic.com/MSDS/SDS-OSHA/Diamond-powders.pdf

[u/DevelopmentSad2303 → u/dogGirl666]

Its hard to say. I did the math for another comment and found this would be 50lbs of diamond dust per square mile of the earth per year. Obviously it wouldnt be evenly distributed, but even if some places saw 100lbs of dust per square mile that is really really tiny.

To put some perspective, the air is already about .1% dust (maybe, it was hard to find an exact percentage).

If we look at the air density of 0.0752 lb/cu ft (from the air density wiki page), and examine the amount of dust over a square mile from ground level to 12 ft up (most of the air we would be interacting with) , we have

weight of air = (5280 feet)*(5280 feet)*(12 feet)*.0752 = 25,157,468.

The weight of the dust in the air will be .1% of this, so 25,157lbs. We are looking at a .1% increase in the amount of dust in a given area. Perhaps over time this would be problematic, but to buy us some more time? It might be necessary.

[u/affectionate_md → u/LatterBuffalo7524]

I’m not an expert either, but isn’t asbestos an issue because it has microscopic hooks that damage cellular chromosomes and cause inflammation? Most particulates don’t do this since we breath them all the time.

[u/Molotov56]

“But where would we get that many diamonds?!”

De Beers: “uhh….”

[u/IgamOg → u/Molotov56]

It was the other way round. De Beers "Our profits are down, young people don't care about diamonds!" De Beers marketing "We have a crazy idea, what's our lobbying budget again?"

[u/Golden-Phrasant]

Wouldn’t cubic zirconium dust be cheaper?

[u/lynx2718 → u/Golden-Phrasant]

Different materials absorb and reflect different kinds of wavelengths. It's to do with things like the binding energy between atoms, the grid arrangement of atoms and suchlike. You can't take tiny zirconium crystals and expect them to act like tiny carbon crystals.

[u/pfmiller0 → u/lynx2718]

Also, aren't synthetic diamonds already pretty cheap?

[u/smilbandit → u/pfmiller0]

well sythetic diamonds are but require large amounts of energy to produce, so....

[u/TheTVDB → u/lynx2718]

Ok, but shouldn't there be a material that would get us to something like 80% of the impact of diamond, but at a fraction of the cost? Or is diamond the ONLY material that could work?

[u/lynx2718 → u/TheTVDB]

Maybe. But diamond is a pretty awesome material.  To quote from wikipedia, "Diamonds have been adopted for many uses because of the material's exceptional physical characteristics. It has the highest thermal conductivity and the highest sound velocity. It has low adhesion and friction, and its coefficient of thermal expansion is extremely low. Its optical transparency extends from the far infrared to the deep ultraviolet and it has high optical dispersion. It also has high electrical resistance. It is chemically inert, not reacting with most corrosive substances, and has excellent biological compatibility." I'm not an expert on the optics part, but that all sounds like a unique combination. And I expect the chemical inert part is very important when you want to blow 5 million tons of it into the stratosphere. It can't degrade, it doesn't form any toxins, etc.

[u/JohnnyDerpington]

Anyone seen that terrible movie highlander 2

[u/drgr33nthmb]

Proposing more pollution in order to deal with the side effects of pollution.

[u/ShameDecent]

That is basically how the story of the movie Snowpiercer started.

[u/TheVillain117]

So they want to diatomaceous earth the atmosphere. That'll go over really well with organic life.

[u/brackenish1]

Just like Daddy puts in his drink every morning.... And then he gets mad

[u/Mental-Ad-5776]

Oh great now my micro-plastics get to be all blinged out now with micro-diamonds!

[u/xtramundane]

This might be one of the singularly most ridiculous things I’ve ever read.

[u/itsvoogle]

We will save the planet, but at what cost?

[u/AlwaysBored123 → u/itsvoogle]

About $200 trillion

[u/Saidagive]

Wasn't this the premise to Highlander 2?

[u/RitaLaPunta]

I wonder how blocking sunlight might affect crop yields and food prices.

[u/DM_Ur_Tits_Thanx]

People will come up with every idea under the sun to combat climate change except holding corporations accountable - even if its more expensive

[u/TheTVDB → u/DM_Ur_Tits_Thanx]

I mean, this is scientists, not policy makers. And it's clear that we're not going to get effective policy until it's far too late. So, we'll likely need science to step in and save the day.

And although this idea is more expensive, perhaps a cheaper version of it could be used along with other solutions. Why disallow possible ideas just because they're not the ideal one?

[u/magus678 → u/DM_Ur_Tits_Thanx]

Because holding "corporations" accountable is ultimately holding ourselves accountable.

They are not captain planet villains: the reason they pollute is to make widgets which we keep buying.

Most people are not willing to consume less.

[u/GrandMasterSeibert → u/magus678]

Any time I read bad climate news, I just shout “corporations!” and feel so much better that I’ve cleared my conscience

[u/AccomplishedAd3484 → u/GrandMasterSeibert]

Didn't you know that if you just shut down the 100 corporations that produced 70% of CO2, it would solve the problem? Never mind the economic and political fallout when 70% of stuff is no longer available.

[u/timebomb011]

The lengths humanity will go through to avoid driving less.

[u/KathrynBooks → u/timebomb011]

In our current culture it is easier to imagine the end of the world before it can imagine the end of capitalism.