Make Sunsets
@makesunsets.bsky.social
Actively cooling Earth with reflective clouds in the stratosphere.
☀️🧴🌍
#sunscreen4earth
Join us https://makesunsets.com/products/join-the-next-balloon-launch-and-cool-the-planet
☀️🧴🌍
#sunscreen4earth
Join us https://makesunsets.com/products/join-the-next-balloon-launch-and-cool-the-planet
I can assure you, no reindeer will be harmed if we need to cool Earth by 0.5°C using stratospheric aerosol injection till we stop burning fossil fuels and remove the trillion tons of CO2 we've injected into the atmosphere. But we might hurt the feelings of a bunch of useless degrowthers.
May 29, 2025 at 4:42 AM
I can assure you, no reindeer will be harmed if we need to cool Earth by 0.5°C using stratospheric aerosol injection till we stop burning fossil fuels and remove the trillion tons of CO2 we've injected into the atmosphere. But we might hurt the feelings of a bunch of useless degrowthers.
Buddy, I'm not embracing anything. There is nothing malicious about it. They literally have reindeer. And the people who opposed the launch of Scopex had reindeer. There is even a documentary coming out this year with the Sami people who freak out about their reindeer.
May 29, 2025 at 4:36 AM
Buddy, I'm not embracing anything. There is nothing malicious about it. They literally have reindeer. And the people who opposed the launch of Scopex had reindeer. There is even a documentary coming out this year with the Sami people who freak out about their reindeer.
For a war guy, you seem like a coward, Bob Dole must be rolling in his grave.
March 7, 2025 at 6:34 AM
For a war guy, you seem like a coward, Bob Dole must be rolling in his grave.
Reposted by Make Sunsets
I guess I'm not understanding why bsky is not a forum for a debate. Do you expect to post shit analysis and not have people respond and just nod their heads like your words are gospel? FYI, I'm not going on your shitty podcast so you can make money off your shit analysis and pander to your audience.
March 6, 2025 at 4:05 AM
I guess I'm not understanding why bsky is not a forum for a debate. Do you expect to post shit analysis and not have people respond and just nod their heads like your words are gospel? FYI, I'm not going on your shitty podcast so you can make money off your shit analysis and pander to your audience.
I guess I'm not understanding why bsky is not a forum for a debate. Do you expect to post shit analysis and not have people respond and just nod their heads like your words are gospel? FYI, I'm not going on your shitty podcast so you can make money off your shit analysis and pander to your audience.
March 6, 2025 at 4:05 AM
I guess I'm not understanding why bsky is not a forum for a debate. Do you expect to post shit analysis and not have people respond and just nod their heads like your words are gospel? FYI, I'm not going on your shitty podcast so you can make money off your shit analysis and pander to your audience.
Cool. There haven't been any wars due to nations dumping over a TRILLION tons of GHGs in our atmosphere, which has warmed our planet.
Why would we start a war because we put less than 1-10 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere to cool it to swing temps back to something more manageable?
Why would we start a war because we put less than 1-10 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere to cool it to swing temps back to something more manageable?
March 5, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Cool. There haven't been any wars due to nations dumping over a TRILLION tons of GHGs in our atmosphere, which has warmed our planet.
Why would we start a war because we put less than 1-10 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere to cool it to swing temps back to something more manageable?
Why would we start a war because we put less than 1-10 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere to cool it to swing temps back to something more manageable?
We clearly state the risks on our website makesunsets.com/pages/faq and address them with academic sources. And I just shared a paper that also weighs the risks in this thread.
Please stop making things up, and say things like, "SAI poses no significant risk."
dosis sola facit venenum
Please stop making things up, and say things like, "SAI poses no significant risk."
dosis sola facit venenum
FAQ
We create global cooling by launching reflective, biodegradable, high-altitude clouds. main side effect: more vivid sunsets;)
makesunsets.com
March 5, 2025 at 6:44 PM
We clearly state the risks on our website makesunsets.com/pages/faq and address them with academic sources. And I just shared a paper that also weighs the risks in this thread.
Please stop making things up, and say things like, "SAI poses no significant risk."
dosis sola facit venenum
Please stop making things up, and say things like, "SAI poses no significant risk."
dosis sola facit venenum
Reposted by Make Sunsets
Did you write this paper because there are papers about how CO2 emissions and GHGs are ungovernable, increasing global temps so it's currently destabilizing world security, which might lead to wars? Therefore, the opposite must be true by trying to cool it down?
March 5, 2025 at 3:40 PM
Did you write this paper because there are papers about how CO2 emissions and GHGs are ungovernable, increasing global temps so it's currently destabilizing world security, which might lead to wars? Therefore, the opposite must be true by trying to cool it down?
Conclusion. My feedback, instead of speculating. How about creating the governance around SAI? We'll keep deploying and do it transparently and welcome collaboration.
March 5, 2025 at 3:57 PM
Conclusion. My feedback, instead of speculating. How about creating the governance around SAI? We'll keep deploying and do it transparently and welcome collaboration.
If people want to understand the risks, here is a paper from a credible expert in the field of SAI that lays out the risks of doing vs. not doing SAI: climate.uchicago.edu/insights/com...
I fed the paper into ChatGPT to check if there was actual data in the paper rather than speculation
I fed the paper into ChatGPT to check if there was actual data in the paper rather than speculation
March 5, 2025 at 3:54 PM
If people want to understand the risks, here is a paper from a credible expert in the field of SAI that lays out the risks of doing vs. not doing SAI: climate.uchicago.edu/insights/com...
I fed the paper into ChatGPT to check if there was actual data in the paper rather than speculation
I fed the paper into ChatGPT to check if there was actual data in the paper rather than speculation
Did you write this paper because there are papers about how CO2 emissions and GHGs are ungovernable, increasing global temps so it's currently destabilizing world security, which might lead to wars? Therefore, the opposite must be true by trying to cool it down?
March 5, 2025 at 3:40 PM
Did you write this paper because there are papers about how CO2 emissions and GHGs are ungovernable, increasing global temps so it's currently destabilizing world security, which might lead to wars? Therefore, the opposite must be true by trying to cool it down?
What integrity? You lost it when you wrote this paper: bsky.app/profile/did:...
These authors give scientists a bad name, they fail to provide scientific, empirical, or policy-based proof that Make Sunsets is a “serious risk.” Instead, they rely on speculation and ideological assumptions without demonstrating harm, unintended consequences, or negative governance effects.
Not only is market-based climate governance inadequate, non-transformative and unjust, it also dangerously results in companies selling “cooling credits” trying to profit from solar geoengineering. Check out our new research www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
March 5, 2025 at 4:04 AM
What integrity? You lost it when you wrote this paper: bsky.app/profile/did:...
5. Misrepresenting Scaling & Impact
Make Sunsets isn’t rolling out full-scale SAI—it’s testing at the gram-to-kilogram level. The paper doesn’t distinguish small pilots from global deployment. Innovation starts small; dismissing it outright ignores the path to responsible scaling.
DO BETTER!
Make Sunsets isn’t rolling out full-scale SAI—it’s testing at the gram-to-kilogram level. The paper doesn’t distinguish small pilots from global deployment. Innovation starts small; dismissing it outright ignores the path to responsible scaling.
DO BETTER!
February 26, 2025 at 5:48 AM
5. Misrepresenting Scaling & Impact
Make Sunsets isn’t rolling out full-scale SAI—it’s testing at the gram-to-kilogram level. The paper doesn’t distinguish small pilots from global deployment. Innovation starts small; dismissing it outright ignores the path to responsible scaling.
DO BETTER!
Make Sunsets isn’t rolling out full-scale SAI—it’s testing at the gram-to-kilogram level. The paper doesn’t distinguish small pilots from global deployment. Innovation starts small; dismissing it outright ignores the path to responsible scaling.
DO BETTER!
4. Contradictory Governance Stance
The authors argue governments have failed on climate but also demand perfect governance before SAI deployment. If waiting for regulation means inaction, isn’t small-scale testing exactly what’s needed to push governance forward?
The authors argue governments have failed on climate but also demand perfect governance before SAI deployment. If waiting for regulation means inaction, isn’t small-scale testing exactly what’s needed to push governance forward?
February 26, 2025 at 5:48 AM
4. Contradictory Governance Stance
The authors argue governments have failed on climate but also demand perfect governance before SAI deployment. If waiting for regulation means inaction, isn’t small-scale testing exactly what’s needed to push governance forward?
The authors argue governments have failed on climate but also demand perfect governance before SAI deployment. If waiting for regulation means inaction, isn’t small-scale testing exactly what’s needed to push governance forward?
3. Ideology Over Science
The paper isn’t a scientific critique—it’s an anti-market rant. It assumes all for-profit geoengineering is bad without proving Make Sunsets' approach is harmful. Climate solutions need science-driven evaluation, not ideological rejection.
The paper isn’t a scientific critique—it’s an anti-market rant. It assumes all for-profit geoengineering is bad without proving Make Sunsets' approach is harmful. Climate solutions need science-driven evaluation, not ideological rejection.
February 26, 2025 at 5:47 AM
3. Ideology Over Science
The paper isn’t a scientific critique—it’s an anti-market rant. It assumes all for-profit geoengineering is bad without proving Make Sunsets' approach is harmful. Climate solutions need science-driven evaluation, not ideological rejection.
The paper isn’t a scientific critique—it’s an anti-market rant. It assumes all for-profit geoengineering is bad without proving Make Sunsets' approach is harmful. Climate solutions need science-driven evaluation, not ideological rejection.
2. Small-Scale ≠ Dangerous
Make Sunsets deploys 1kg SO2 at a time, yet the paper treats this like a full-scale geoengineering project. No mention that fossil fuels emit millions of tons of SO2 yearly. If small-scale SAI is “dangerous,” where’s the evidence?
Make Sunsets deploys 1kg SO2 at a time, yet the paper treats this like a full-scale geoengineering project. No mention that fossil fuels emit millions of tons of SO2 yearly. If small-scale SAI is “dangerous,” where’s the evidence?
February 26, 2025 at 5:47 AM
2. Small-Scale ≠ Dangerous
Make Sunsets deploys 1kg SO2 at a time, yet the paper treats this like a full-scale geoengineering project. No mention that fossil fuels emit millions of tons of SO2 yearly. If small-scale SAI is “dangerous,” where’s the evidence?
Make Sunsets deploys 1kg SO2 at a time, yet the paper treats this like a full-scale geoengineering project. No mention that fossil fuels emit millions of tons of SO2 yearly. If small-scale SAI is “dangerous,” where’s the evidence?
1. No Evidence of Risk
The paper claims Make Sunsets poses a “serious risk” but provides zero data or models to back it up. No evidence of harm, no unintended consequences shown—just ideological speculation. Science, not politics, should guide climate action.
The paper claims Make Sunsets poses a “serious risk” but provides zero data or models to back it up. No evidence of harm, no unintended consequences shown—just ideological speculation. Science, not politics, should guide climate action.
February 26, 2025 at 5:47 AM
1. No Evidence of Risk
The paper claims Make Sunsets poses a “serious risk” but provides zero data or models to back it up. No evidence of harm, no unintended consequences shown—just ideological speculation. Science, not politics, should guide climate action.
The paper claims Make Sunsets poses a “serious risk” but provides zero data or models to back it up. No evidence of harm, no unintended consequences shown—just ideological speculation. Science, not politics, should guide climate action.
This is a pretty bold claim, what evidence do you have that our company "demonstrates a serious risk of advancing solar geoengineering?"
How are you measuring this risk?
Why don't you mention the harm that Silverlinings caused in Alameda in your paper?
How are you measuring this risk?
Why don't you mention the harm that Silverlinings caused in Alameda in your paper?
February 26, 2025 at 5:39 AM
This is a pretty bold claim, what evidence do you have that our company "demonstrates a serious risk of advancing solar geoengineering?"
How are you measuring this risk?
Why don't you mention the harm that Silverlinings caused in Alameda in your paper?
How are you measuring this risk?
Why don't you mention the harm that Silverlinings caused in Alameda in your paper?
Here are our marginal costs: docs.google.com/spreadsheets...
If you want to get a picture of our financial performance, we share it on our blog: makesunsets.com/blogs/news and update the number of Cooling Credits deployed monthly: makesunsets.com/pages/who
If you want to get a picture of our financial performance, we share it on our blog: makesunsets.com/blogs/news and update the number of Cooling Credits deployed monthly: makesunsets.com/pages/who
current marginal costs
docs.google.com
February 26, 2025 at 5:35 AM
Here are our marginal costs: docs.google.com/spreadsheets...
If you want to get a picture of our financial performance, we share it on our blog: makesunsets.com/blogs/news and update the number of Cooling Credits deployed monthly: makesunsets.com/pages/who
If you want to get a picture of our financial performance, we share it on our blog: makesunsets.com/blogs/news and update the number of Cooling Credits deployed monthly: makesunsets.com/pages/who
If you want to offset your historical emissions in one shot, it generally comes out to more than 1,000 tons based on your age and income of our typical customer; the one-time purchase drops to a $1/ CO2e ton-year via automatic bulk discount pricing.
February 26, 2025 at 5:33 AM
If you want to offset your historical emissions in one shot, it generally comes out to more than 1,000 tons based on your age and income of our typical customer; the one-time purchase drops to a $1/ CO2e ton-year via automatic bulk discount pricing.
Generally, what we find is that people who make a one-time purchase see it more as a donation and give whatever they can. For $30/month, it will essentially cool your CO2e footprint, and each month, we deliver 30 grams of SO2 into the stratosphere on your behalf to address your historical emissions
February 26, 2025 at 5:33 AM
Generally, what we find is that people who make a one-time purchase see it more as a donation and give whatever they can. For $30/month, it will essentially cool your CO2e footprint, and each month, we deliver 30 grams of SO2 into the stratosphere on your behalf to address your historical emissions
The higher one-time price helps anchor the value of our service and encourages long-term commitment. We used to charge $10 per CC for one-time purchases, but customers found the difference too extreme, so we adjusted it.
February 26, 2025 at 5:33 AM
The higher one-time price helps anchor the value of our service and encourages long-term commitment. We used to charge $10 per CC for one-time purchases, but customers found the difference too extreme, so we adjusted it.
This is not "research" you don't even have the correct pricing. Cooling Credits pricing:
$1 per CC when you subscribe to a monthly plan (self-serve, cancel at any time).
$5 per CC for a one-time purchase of 1,000 units or less.
$1 per CC for a one-time purchase of 1,001 units or more
$1 per CC when you subscribe to a monthly plan (self-serve, cancel at any time).
$5 per CC for a one-time purchase of 1,000 units or less.
$1 per CC for a one-time purchase of 1,001 units or more
February 26, 2025 at 5:32 AM
This is not "research" you don't even have the correct pricing. Cooling Credits pricing:
$1 per CC when you subscribe to a monthly plan (self-serve, cancel at any time).
$5 per CC for a one-time purchase of 1,000 units or less.
$1 per CC for a one-time purchase of 1,001 units or more
$1 per CC when you subscribe to a monthly plan (self-serve, cancel at any time).
$5 per CC for a one-time purchase of 1,000 units or less.
$1 per CC for a one-time purchase of 1,001 units or more