World GDP: $105.4 trillion USD

  • marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    4 days ago

    Of all the aerosols they could think about!

    No chance at all of a basically indestructible material not being destructed if absorbed by lungs (or gills) and leading to some disease. You don’t need to check. There’s no way this could go wrong.

    Or, rather… I believe lead is cheaper… Given how much people like to use it, maybe it’s a better option.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Yes, let’s just have everyone on Earth breathe in diamond dust all day every day. There’s no way that could be bad for our health.

    • PlantJam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      There’s never been a case of something having different behavior or health effects just because of a tiny chemical difference (trans fat) or size difference (micro plastics), what’s the worst that could happen?

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      just wear masks for a few decades, potentially respirators, and probably add whole house air filtration if you want to take it off at night.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    4 days ago

    Amazing. Instead of just… fighting climate change by not polluting the planet let’s just fill our entire atmosphere with diamond dust, because that’s the logical decision of course.

    • Eximius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      It’s not really any different than usual dust, other than it is even more likely to scratch your phone (oh no!). The surprising thing is the bullshit price number, I’m sure it’s some brain-dead economist looking at the point-price for diamond and with great effort making a single multiplication.

      Edit: The study does note industrial diamond manufacturing, but doesn’t go into detail on why it’s so expensive for diamond powder, other than saying “it would require much more industrial diamond than is currently produced”… Which is just… Empty? Considering industry would change to account for such a drastic rise in demand.

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Elon musk’s kids should be made an example of when reclamation comes around.

      They’re being brought up thinking they can live like gods. How unfortunate would it be if they actually had to live like the rest of us…

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    That amount sounds like total bullshit. Diamonds can be manufactured and once that is done at scale, it won’t be all that expensive. Even at $10000 a ton, five million tonnes would cost just 50 billion.

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      $10000/ton is $5/lb from a quick google search they are about $250/lb for industrial diamonds. So 50* 50 or 2500 billion or 2.5 trillion with no idea if they can use run of the mill industrial diamonds or if there will be additional processing to get them into the aerosolized form also how are you going to launch them, and for how many years would we need to do it

    • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 days ago

      These are not good ideas. Remember that global warming is just an overarching effect of pollution which we will still have. What diamond dust pollution effects will be, no one knows, but I doubt we want to find out.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 days ago

        The fossil fuel oligarchy would prefer to give all mammals on Earth emphysema than stop burning fossils, and do it for 10x the price.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      That number is for doing it anually for 65 years. It lists roughly 18 billion per year for the cost.

      But besides that, I think you are greatly underestimating the cost of the diamonds. Synthetic ones are way cheaper than natural ones, yes, but there’s a lot of room between “natural diamond expensive” and “actually cheap”. Going by these prices https://www.diamondtech.com/products/categories/diamond_powder_price_list.html

      It’s $2.5 million per tonne. I assume you could get a cheaper price per weight if you’re buying five million tonnes of anything, but it’s still two orders of magnitude more expensive than you are guessing

    • jalkasieni@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      Firstly, it’s 5 million tonnes per year. For 65 years. Secondly, the cost is for a 65 year SAI program, including developing the tech and running the missions. Thirdly, this is all explained in TFA or the links therein.

  • P_P@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 days ago

    It’s not cost effective to save humanity. Stock prices would crash.

  • john89@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    4 days ago

    The artificially-inflated price of the diamonds should be irrelevant in this calculation.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 days ago

      You are missing the point, because we need to do that anyway.
      The idea is to prevent things from getting worse in the meantime.
      Replacing fossil fuels take time no matter how much we invest.

      • ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        ok but you just know corporations are going to use this as an excuse to keep using fossil fuels. like to them this is basically carte blanche to keep the status quo and block green energy from happening even harder. “oh hurdur har har we found a solution to climate change and it’s dumping diamonds in the atmosphere, no need to pay for green energy anymore haha” type shit

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          corporations are going to use this as an excuse to keep using fossil fuels.

          Corporations follow the law, the only way to solove this is to have the laws required.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Oh please, of course they don’t always, but the ones that don’t are generally forced to by oversight.
              Yes I kn ow they generally get off easy, but then oversight is increased and if it continues, the penalties increase, until ultimately it will be forced to shut down if illegal activities continue.
              So yes generally cooperations do follow the law.

      • pageflight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Thanks, hadn’t seen that before. I wonder how things like “eat less beef” fit into that chart, or of that’s part of the $0 premium.