Turning the Tide on Climate Change with Green Sand Beaches [pdf]
projectvesta.org
projectvesta.org
I do wonder about the effects on aquatic ecosystems and migratory birds/other animals that use the beaches to nest.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/beach-vacations/...
I realize that not all states require nonprofits to conduct audits but this seems like a wonderful area to scam people. "Buy this $300 necklace and save the planet"
It's great on paper, but we find nonprofits mostly benefit the people running them and very little of the money actually goes to the actions the nonprofits claim to be undertaking. The science can be sound, and their intentions can be honorable, but that doesn't mean that what they want to do is financially viable, especially if the principles are paying themselves very high salaries, which is typically what happens with nonprofits. I know a couple of multi-millionaires who been running struggling nonprofits for years. It's funny how the people running the nonprofit have done phenomenally well but their nonprofits hardly do anything, modern day snake oil salesmen.
I would think that an organization trying to save the planet would want to be make sure everything they do is transparent and above board.
This moral question is a red herring.
It's more that those against geoengineering have unrealistic expectations that things can go 'back to the way they were' - some idealized past where the balance of nature is achieved and everything stays static. A fiction created by popular media.
The world hasn't ever been static. With or without humans.
We need a new basic narrative to get out of this way of thinking. It's really that intrinsic. We see the idealized past in Tolkien's work, in Avatar, in Disney movies - they create an idea that the only solution forward is reverse entropy. This is a damaging idea because it removes agency from us humans and leaves it up to the gods in which we'll inevitably come up empty-handed.
EW was never field-tested in any significant capacity. We know nothing about the cost-effectiveness of it, because we hardly understand if it'll work at all.
I suppose in some sense you could consider it a trolley problem - do we kill one to save millions - but it seems very intensive?
I think this is a case where the trolley problem is easily morally solved; it's morally urgent to slow pace of coral reef death and other marine life death, and since it is already our actions causing this I think it is quite morally right to take any action that reduces the suffering of life overall.