We currently get the small quantities needed for testing from commercial suppliers of these materials who are typically producing it without any recycled glass content. We are investigating alternative sources and formulations for larger orders.

We are investigating many possibilities for glass sources for the material including recycled glass. In principle, there is reason to believe that recycled glass could work very well.

Deployment could cost around $1-5 billion a year. 

Isn’t that a lot? 

We believe we need to stop climate change no matter the cost, yet our solution is surprisingly cost effective. Stopping climate change could end up costing nearly $50 Trillion in the next 20 years. That means our solution would end up accounting for less than .1% of the cumulative cost of fighting climate change. Proportionally, deployment would cost less than what the average American spends each year on ice cream. Compared to other options it’s safe, effective, and practical, and the most cost effective. Our interim solution can be applied to buy time for the world’s nations to complete the move to a more sustainable economy. 

This is something we’ve struggled with internally for some time. We don’t want to be the excuse not to do the rest of the important work on decarbonization that must happen. But reality is on our side with this one. Climate modeling shows that we can be very effective, but not nearly effective enough to act alone. In the best case we can give the world some extra decades before some of the worst climate impacts in order to do the work of decarbonizing in a way that is economically and politically palatable. We see the project we’re working on as a tool in the tool chest, and just like you wouldn’t fix a car with a single wrench we won’t fix the climate by ourselves.

Climate models executed through research partnerships with experts in modeling and Arctic albedo help us translate the small-scale laboratory and field test results into what the potential climate impacts could be for implementing this climate restoration solution in strategic areas of the Arctic. Climate modeling lets us work through complicated problems in advance through simulations, helping us understand the Arctic’s complex system interactions. The models also allow us to test climate theories and solutions so we can best predict how the Arctic region’s environment will change over time. Importantly, the modeling allows us to evaluate impacts local to any proposed treatment area, as well as to predict any farther-reaching effects.

It has been observed that what happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic, and that, for instance, the recent shifts in Arctic conditions have led to increased droughts and fire risks in the Western US. Conversely, climate modeling allows us to predict how much of such droughts and fire risks in the Western US could be mitigated by rebuilding Arctic reflectivity, to the world’s benefit. The climate modeling also lets us predict any adverse impacts that might have increased the likelihood of occurring in some region of the world, so that policymakers and international bodies like the UN that consider the good of the entire world, can assess which scenarios show clearly that the benefits to the world would outweigh any predicted risks – and which scenarios should be avoided.

Our approach takes a deliberately light touch, treating the smallest possible areas, with the smallest possible amounts of material, for the maximum benefit at the lowest cost and risk, and to live by our most important principle of first do no harm.

While some may place our efforts in that category it’s a term that to many, for better or worse, has come to mean stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection, which we are not. While we respect the efforts of everyone working to fight climate change, we’ve been working hard to establish our climate restoration project as an effort to disperse safe materials in very limited, strategic locations (a little goes a long way), and our solution is reversible if needed, which stands in contrast to other approaches. 

We have been in early testing and are in the process of developing a timeline for communication and community involvement. 

So far, we’ve been deeply in the process of development to ensure we have a climate solution that’s even viable to discuss. Now that we’re more confident in the efficacy of our solution, involving the tribes and residents of the Arctic is necessary and critical before any field testing (let alone implementation). Before we move towards field testing in the Arctic, we intend to present our work to the organizations and individuals who live and work near any future testing and deployment sites. We are in the process of developing a timeline/plan for communication and community involvement as we in no way want to repeat history. We hope to have a more detailed answer for you soon. That said, we do not intend to spread this material ourselves. Deployment is a decision too big for any one organization to make, rather we intend to leave the process up to local governments. Even under the shortest timeline potential deployment would still be five years out.