White House is pushing ahead research to cool Earth by reflecting back sunlight
More Videos
Published
3 years agoon
By
admin
Full frame sun, Climate change, Heatwave hot sun, Global warming from the sun and burning
Chuchart Duangdaw | Moment | Getty Images
The White House is coordinating a five-year research plan to study ways of modifying the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth to temper the effects of global warming, a process sometimes called solar geoengineering or sunlight reflection.
The research plan will assess climate interventions, including spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space, and should include goals for research, what’s necessary to analyze the atmosphere, and what impact these kinds of climate interventions may have on Earth, according to the White House‘s Office of Science and Technology Policy. Congress directed the research plan be produced in its spending plan for 2022, which President Joe Biden signed in March.
Some of the techniques, such as spraying sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, are known to have harmful effects on the environment and human health. But scientists and climate leaders who are concerned that humanity will overshoot its emissions targets say research is important to figure out how best to balance these risks against a possibly catastrophic rise in the Earth’s temperature.
Getting ready to research a topic is a very preliminary step, but it’s notable the White House is formally engaging with what has largely been seen as the stuff of dystopian fantasy. In Kim Stanley Robinson’s science fiction novel, “The Ministry for the Future,” a heat wave in India kills 20 million people and out of desperation, India decides to implement its own strategy of limiting the sunlight that gets to Earth.
Chris Sacca, the founder of climate tech investment fund Lowercarbon Capital, said it’s prudent for the White House to be spearheading the research effort.
“Sunlight reflection has the potential to safeguard the livelihoods of billions of people, and it’s a sign of the White House’s leadership that they’re advancing the research so that any future decisions can be rooted in science not geopolitical brinkmanship,” Sacca told CNBC. (Sacca has donated money to support research in the area, but said he has “zero financial interests beyond philanthropy” in the idea and does not think there should be private business models in the space, he told CNBC.)
Harvard professor David Keith, who first worked on the topic in 1989, said it’s being taken much more seriously now. He points to formal statements of support for researching sunlight reflection from the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the creation of a new group he advises called the Climate Overshoot Commission, an international group of scientists and lawmakers that’s evaluating climate interventions in preparation for a world that warms beyond what the Paris Climate Accord recommended.
To be clear, nobody is saying sunlight-reflection modification is the solution to climate change. Reducing emissions remains the priority.
“You cannot judge what the country does on solar-radiation modification without looking at what it is doing in emission reductions, because the priority is emission reductions,” said Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative. “Solar-radiation modification will never be a solution to the climate crisis.”
Three ways to reduce sunlight
The idea of sunlight reflection first appeared prominently in a 1965 report to President Lyndon B. Johnson, entitled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” Keith told CNBC. The report floated the idea of spreading particles over the ocean at a cost of $100 per square mile. A one percent change in the reflectivity of the Earth would cost $500 million per year, which does “not seem excessive,” the report said, “considering the extraordinary economic and human importance of climate.”
The estimated price tag has gone up since then. The current estimate is that it would cost $10 billion per year to run a program that cools the Earth by 1 degree Celsius, said Edward A. Parson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA’s law school. But that figure is seen to be remarkably cheap compared to other climate change mitigation initiatives.
A landmark report released in March 2021 from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine addressed three kinds of solar geoengineering: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, and cirrus cloud thinning.
Stratospheric aerosol injection would involve flying aircraft into the stratosphere, or between 10 miles and 30 miles skyward, and spraying a fine mist that would hang in the air, reflecting some of the sun’s radiation back into space.
“The stratosphere is calm, and things stay up there for a long time,” Parson told CNBC. “The atmospheric life of stuff that’s injected in the stratosphere is between six months and two years.”
Stratospheric aerosol injection “would immediately take the high end off hot extremes,” Parson said. And also it would “pretty much immediately” slow extreme precipitation events, he said.
“The top-line slogan about stratospheric aerosol injection, which I wrote in a paper more than 10 years ago — but it’s still apt — is fast, cheap and imperfect. Fast is crucial. Nothing else that we do for climate change is fast. Cheap, it’s so cheap,” Parson told CNBC.
“And it’s not imperfect because we haven’t got it right yet. It’s imperfect because the imperfection is embedded in the way it works. The same reason it’s fast is the reason that it’s imperfect, and there’s no way to get around that.”
One option for an aerosol is sulfur dioxide, the cooling effects of which are well known from volcanic eruptions. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, for instance, spewed thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, causing global temperatures to drop temporarily by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
A giant volcanic mushroom cloud explodes some 20 kilometers high from Mount Pinatubo above almost deserted US Clark Air Base, on June 12, 1991 followed by another more powerful explosion. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991 was the second largest volcanic eruption of the twentieth century.
Arlan Naeg | Afp | Getty Images
There’s also a precedent in factories that burn fossil fuels, especially coal. Coal has some sulfur that oxidizes when burned, creating sulfur dioxide. That sulfur dioxide goes through other chemical reactions and eventually falls to the earth as sulfuric acid in rain. But during the time that the sulfur pollution sits in the air, it does serve as a kind of insulation from the heat of the sun.
Ironically, as the world reduces coal burning to curb the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming, we’ll also be eliminating the sulfur dioxide emissions that mask some of that warming.
“Sulfur pollution that’s coming out of smokestacks right now is masking between a third and a half of the heating signal from the greenhouse gases humans have already emitted into the atmosphere,” Parson said.
In other words, we’ve been doing one form of sunlight reflection for decades already, but in an uncontrolled fashion, explained Kelly Wanser, the executive director of SilverLining, an organization promoting research and governance of climate interventions.
“This isn’t something totally new and Frankenstein — we’re already doing it; we’re doing it in the most dirty, unplanned way you could possibly do it, and we don’t understand what we’re doing,” Wanser told CNBC.
Spraying sulfur in the stratosphere is not the only way of manipulating the amount of sunlight that gets to the Earth, and some say it’s not the best option.
“Sulfur dioxide is likely not the best aerosol and is by no means the only technique for this. Cloud brightening is a very promising technique as well, for example,” Sacca told CNBC.
Marine cloud brightening involves increasing the reflectivity of clouds that are relatively close to the surface of the ocean with techniques like spraying sea salt crystals into the air. Marine cloud brightening generally gets less attention than stratospheric aerosol injection because it affects a half dozen to a few dozen miles and would potentially only last hours to days, Parson told CNBC.
Cirrus cloud thinning, the third category addressed in the 2021 report from the National Academies, involves thinning mid-level clouds, between 3.7 and 8.1 miles high, to allow heat to escape from the Earth’s surface. It is not technically part of the “solar geoengineering” umbrella category because it does not involve reflecting sunlight, but instead involves increasing the release of thermal radiation.
Known risks to people and the environment
There are significant and well-known risks to some of these techniques — sulfur dioxide aerosol injection, in particular.
First, spraying sulfur into the atmosphere will “mess with the ozone chemistry in a way that might delay the recovery of the ozone layer,” Parson told CNBC.
The Montreal Protocol adopted in 1987 regulates and phases out the use of ozone depleting substances, such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) which were commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioners, but that healing process is still going on.
Also, sulfates injected into the atmosphere eventually come down as acid rain, which affects soil, water reservoirs, and local ecosystems.
Third, the sulfur in the atmosphere forms very fine particulates that can cause respiratory illness.
The question, then, is whether these known effects are more or less harmful than the warming they would offset.
“Yes, damaging the ozone is bad, acid deposition is bad, respiratory illness is bad, absolutely. And spraying sulfur in the stratosphere would contribute in the bad direction to all of those effects,” Parson told CNBC. “But you also have to ask, how much and relative to what?”
The sulfur already being emitted from the burning of fossil fuels is causing environmental damage and is already killing between 10 million to 20 million people a year due to respiratory illness, said Parson. “So that’s the way we live already,” he said.
Meanwhile, “the world is getting hotter, and there will be catastrophic impacts for many people in the world,” said Pasztor.
“There’s already too much carbon out there. And even if you stop all emissions today, the global temperature will still be high and will remain high for hundreds of years. So, that’s why scientists are saying maybe we need something else, in addition — not instead of — but maybe in addition to everything else that is being done,” he said. “The current action/nonaction of countries collectively — we are committing millions of people to death. That’s what we’re doing.”
For sunlight-reflection technology to become a tool in the climate change mitigation toolbox, awareness among the public and lawmakers has to grow slowly and steadily, according to Tyler Felgenhauer, a researcher at Duke University who studies public policy and risk.
“If it is to rise on to the agenda, it’ll be kind of an evolutionary development where more and more environmental groups are willing to state publicly that they’re for research,” Felgenhauer told CNBC. “We’re arguing it’s not going to be some sort of one big, bad climate event that makes us all suddenly adopt or be open to solar geoengineering — there will be more of a gradual process.”
A man waits for customers displaying fans at his store amid rising temperatures in New Delhi on May 27, 2020. – India is wilting under a heatwave, with the temperature in places reaching 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) and the capital enduring its hottest May day in nearly two decades.
Jewel Samad | Afp | Getty Images
Research it now or be caught off guard later?
Some environmentalists consider sunlight relfection a “moral hazard,” because it offers a relatively easy and inexpensive alternative to doing the work of reducing emissions.
One experiment to study stratospheric aerosols by the Keutsch Group at Harvard was called off in 2021 due to opposition. The experiment would “threaten the reputation and credibility of the climate leadership Sweden wants and must pursue as the only way to deal effectively with the climate crisis: powerful measures for a rapid and just transition to zero emission societies, 100% renewable energy and shutdown of the fossil fuel industry,” an open letter from opponents said.
But proponents insist that researching sunlight-modification technologies should not preclude emissions-reduction work.
“Even the people like me who think it’s very important to do research on these things and to develop the capabilities all agree that the urgent top priority for managing climate change is cutting emissions,” Parson told CNBC.
Keith of Harvard agreed, saying that “we learn more and develop better mechanism[s] for governance.”
Doing research is also important because many onlookers expect that some country, facing an unprecedented climate disaster, will act unilaterally to will try some version of sunlight modification anyway — even if it hasn’t been carefully studied.
“In my opinion, it’s more than 90 percent likely that within the next 20 years, some major nation wants to do this,” Parson said.
Sacca put the odds even higher.
“The odds are 100 percent that some country pursues sunlight reflection, particularly in the wake of seeing millions of their citizens die from extreme weather,” Sacca told CNBC. “The world will not stand idly by and leaders will feel compelled to take action. Our only hope is that by doing the research now, and in public, the world can collaboratively understand the upsides and best methods for any future project.”
Correction: The Climate Overshoot Commission has not issued a formal statement of support for sunlight reflection.

You may like
Technology
CNBC Daily Open: Some hope after last week’s U.S. market rout
Published
4 hours agoon
November 24, 2025By
admin
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on Nov. 21, 2025 in New York City.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images
Last week on Wall Street, two forces dragged stocks lower: a set of high-stakes numbers from Nvidia and the U.S. jobs report that landed with more heat than expected. But the leaves that remained after hot tea scalded investors seemed to augur good tidings.
Even though Nvidia’s third-quarter results easily breezed past Wall Street’s estimates, they couldn’t quell worries about lofty valuations and an unsustainable bubble inflating in the artificial intelligence sector. The “Magnificent Seven” cohort — save Alphabet — had a losing week.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics added to the pressure. September payrolls rose far more than economists expected, prompting investors to pare back their bets of a December interest rate cut. The timing didn’t help matters, as the report had been delayed and hit just as markets were already on edge.
By Friday’s close, the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average lost roughly 2% for the week, while the Nasdaq Composite tumbled 2.7%.
Still, a flicker of hope appeared on the horizon.
On Friday, New York Federal Reserve President John Williams said that he sees “room” for the central bank to lower interest rates, describing current policy as “modestly restrictive.” His comments caused traders to increase their bets on a December cut to around 70%, up from 44.4% a week ago, according to the CME FedWatch tool.
And despite a broad sell-off in AI stocks last week, Alphabet shares bucked the trend. Investors seemed impressed by its new AI model, Gemini 3, and hopeful that its development of custom chips could rival Nvidia’s in the long run.
Meanwhile, Eli Lilly’s ascent into the $1 trillion valuation club served as a reminder that market leadership doesn’t belong to tech alone. In a market defined by narrow concentration, any sign of broadening strength is a welcome change.
Diversification, even within AI’s sprawling ecosystem, might be exactly what this market needs now.
What you need to know today
And finally…
The Beijing music venue DDC was one of the latest to have to cancel a performance by a Japanese artist on Nov. 20, 2025, in the wake of escalating bilateral tensions.
Screenshot
Japanese concerts in China are getting abruptly canceled as tensions simmer
China’s escalating dispute with Japan reinforces Beijing’s growing economic influence — and penchant for abrupt actions that can create uncertainty for businesses.
Hours before Japanese jazz quintet The Blend was due to perform in Beijing on Thursday, a plainclothesman walked into the DDC music club during a sound check. Then, “the owner of the live house came to me and said: ‘The police has told me tonight is canceled,'” said Christian Petersen-Clausen, a music agent.
— Evelyn Cheng
Correction: This report has been updated to correct the spelling of Eli Lilly.
Technology
Meta halted internal research suggesting social media harm, court filing alleges
Published
4 hours agoon
November 24, 2025By
admin
Meta halted internal research that purportedly showed that people who stopped using Facebook became less depressed and anxious, according to a legal filing that was released on Friday.
The social media giant was alleged to have initiated the study, dubbed Project Mercury, in late 2019 as a way to help it “explore the impact that our apps have on polarization, news consumption, well-being, and daily social interactions,” according to the legal brief, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The filing contains newly unredacted information pertaining to Meta.
The newly released legal brief is related to high-profile multidistrict litigation from a variety of plaintiffs, such as school districts, parents and state attorneys general against social media companies like Meta, Google’s YouTube, Snap and TikTok.
The plaintiffs claim that these businesses were aware that their respective platforms caused various mental health-related harms to children and young adults, but failed to take action and instead misled educators and authorities, among several allegations.
“We strongly disagree with these allegations, which rely on cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions in an attempt to present a deliberately misleading picture,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement. “The full record will show that for over a decade, we have listened to parents, researched issues that matter most, and made real changes to protect teens—like introducing Teen Accounts with built-in protections and providing parents with controls to manage their teens’ experiences.”
A Google spokesperson said in a statement that “These lawsuits fundamentally misunderstand how YouTube works and the allegations are simply not true.”
“YouTube is a streaming service where people come to watch everything from live sports to podcasts to their favorite creators, primarily on TV screens, not a social network where people go to catch up with friends,” the Google spokesperson said. “We’ve also developed dedicated tools for young people, guided by child safety experts, that give families control.”
Snap and TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The 2019 Meta research was based on a random sample of consumers who stopped their Facebook and Instagram usage for a month, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit alleged that Meta was disappointed that the initial tests of the study showed that people who stopped using Facebook “for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison.”
Meta allegedly chose not to “sound the alarm,” but instead stopped the research, the lawsuit said.
“The company never publicly disclosed the results of its deactivation study,” according to the suit. “Instead, Meta lied to Congress about what it knew.”
The lawsuit cites an unnamed Meta employee who allegedly said, “If the results are bad and we don’t publish and they leak, is it going to look like tobacco companies doing research and knowing cigs were bad and then keeping that info to themselves?”
Stone, in a series of social media posts, pushed back on the lawsuit’s implication that Meta shuttered the internal research after it allegedly showed a causal relationship between its apps and adverse mental-health effects.
Stone characterized the 2019 study as flawed and said it was the reason that the company expressed disappointment. The study, Stone said, merely found that “people who believed using Facebook was bad for them felt better when they stopped using it.”
“This is a confirmation of other public research (“deactivation studies”) out there that demonstrates the same effect,” Stone said in a separate post. “It makes intuitive sense but it doesn’t show anything about the actual effect of using the platform.”
CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed reporting.
Technology
Google’s new AI model puts OpenAI, the great conundrum of this market, on shakier ground
Published
10 hours agoon
November 23, 2025By
admin
Almost every night, for almost a decade, I got a phone call between 7:00 and 7:01 p.m. ET. I didn’t have to look at the three letters on my phone screen to know who was ringing. It was the old man we called Pop, or more like “The Old Man of the Mountain,” as he called himself when we had our grandchildren. Sometimes I tired of the words, but I always took a breath before I hit hello, lest he hear the fatigue in my voice for something I know I would miss dearly one day. “Jamesy,” he would say, “the best one yet.” Always, “the best one yet.” If I have a regret, it’s that I never tape recorded it because I would like to play it between 7:00 and 7:01 p.m. now, every night. But I didn’t. So, call me intrigued, when I saw on my schedule that I would soon be interviewed by two gentlemen, Jack Crivici- Kramer and Nick Martell, on a podcast called “TBOY.” I knew these two as the people who started what I know to be Robinhood Snacks, something I still read midmorning, which is about 6:30 a.m. for the collective slackers I deal with. I had heard of some of their stuff since, but candidly, I didn’t pay close attention — or, at least, close enough attention until I knew I would be interviewed by them on “TBOY.” I have always felt kindred to anyone younger who loves the markets, so I figured this one, this interview, would be the one where they would have actually read my new book, “How to Make Money in Any Market,” and even realize that I was trying to radicalize the public into thinking they could pick a few stocks — five, to be sure — to go with the omnipresent index funds that we are required to take, along with our mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, chicken pox and measles shots. At a time when so much is up for debate, I have a right to argue that you can buy stocks of companies that you can observe. You know, be curious about them, Google them, look at their websites and discover everything that, in many cases, granted them admission to the sainted S & P 500, an active fund that masks itself in passivity. The S & P shot gives you immunity from the downside, at least they claim. However, if the index is all you own, it sure cuts you off the upside, as I endlessly prove. The purveyors of conventional wisdom act as if nothing has happened that could make it easier to pick stocks since since they began their insistence on you checking your brain at the door of your savings — nothing like the web, the chatbots, the bountiful information we all know exists but our financial “betters” still ignore. So, out of deference to the creators of “TBOY,” I decided to do more than show up. I listened to old podcasts. And listened some more. And some more — right through the three hours of time I leave for quiet homework, even before Ragu and Toni get up. No, don’t buy Campbell’s because of those hounds. Rest in peace to my old dog, Nvidia. The TBOY podcast was delicious. Just crisp, funny, smart and on point. Just like young people really interested in the markets can give you. Just as young people want the information now, not in ancient and flat form, but in something that’s much harder and more creative with a staccato, machine-gun style of delivery. As I listened to some recent episodes, I heard one that was so spot on that I found myself thinking I should actually highlight some of their analysis on “Squawk on the Street” before I saw them. Oh, by the way, what does “TBOY” stand for? “The Best One Yet.” So, I knew it was right to be going on this show and, more important, I knew there could be no pride of authorship. The boys behind “TBOY” figured out the great conundrum facing this market, which is the existential nature of OpenAI. More specifically, they realized that OpenAI has pledged to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to beat Alphabet -owned Google with ChatGPT. But it can’t. And it won’t. OpenAI, they said, wants to be Google with comprehension, but we don’t need it because we have Google with Gemini. In other words, Google is already everything OpenAI aspires to be. Released on Tuesday, Google’s latest version of Gemini — its AI chatbot to rival ChatGPT — is remarkably capable, with enhanced reasoning capabilities. Additionally, Gemini 3 demonstrates that the scaling laws of AI are still intact, just as Nvidia’s Jensen Huang has for months insisted was the case in the face of some concern about the pace of improvement for AI models. Soon after the Morning Meeting, I went up to see Nick and Jack at their Nasdaq haunt. They were more than gracious and hilarious, frankly, as I thought they would be, as well as respectful beyond all belief, which I found somewhat embarrassing and totally charming. Before we could sit, I complimented them on their triumphant Google observation. As true students of the game of the book tour, though, they preferred to dive into my book. Right from the get-go, minutes after we were mic’d up, they began to press and press about index funds versus picking stocks. They had read the book well, knew it chapter after chapter, as I always hoped would be the case. It was a joy to have actually knowledgeable interlocutors in this, the final station upon my author’s promotional cross. Candidly and somewhat remorsefully, I thought for sure that during my press tour for the book, there would be actually someone who would challenge me, but you can’t challenge me if you haven’t read it. What can I say? It made me rapturous to actually talk about why you can pick stocks, the comparison to when I began to build a portfolio versus now, and how the index fund predators would never let anyone pick a stock, lest they pick the speculative names like Rigetti Computing , Oklo , Joby Aviation and others like it. I, on the other hand, am happy to “allow” readers to own index funds along with self-directed stocks. Why not? Thoughtful investors, armed with the newfound ease of the homework, might select one or two stocks among five that can be life-changing, like Nvidia was to so many of you. The hour flew by. I demanded more time. They thought I was jesting. I was just so damned happy that they got it — it being the revolution I was trying to start when I wrote this book, a rebellion against the index-fund orthodoxy that, at its core, is an insult to the intelligence of everyday people. But no, it was time to depart. I had to write my show and interview a CEO before that. Plus, this was all transpiring on the day the market had a hideous about-face, with none other than Nvidia leading the way into the abyss of an island reversal, up to down in one horrendous session. When I got back, I thought I should write a segment covering what I thought about TBOY and their thesis of OpenAI being beaten by the revitalized of Google. Then I realized, there was not enough time. And it would be way too linear. The fact is, the biggest crisis this market has — the one that may be TWOY — is the hubris of the individual behind ChatGPT, Sam Altman. This supercilious man believes that if he spends enough money that he doesn’t currently have, he can challenge Google in the biggest vertical in the world, information, and that his knowledge factory will top the one in Mountain View, California. We, the users of Gemini 3, now know it will be a tough climb. OpenAI appears so far behind this new Gemini that Altman may have to pivot and go after the verticals of the other hyperscalers: social media or retail and perhaps even enterprise software. There’s only one problem with a potential pivot. No, make that three. First, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has already decided to spend any challenger to death regardless of what it will do to his stock. Social media, with all of those targeted ad dollars, will always be Meta’s turf. Zuckerberg has the firepower to be sure that’s the case. Second, Amazon is always going to win in retail, it’s only real competitor being Walmart . The new initiative toward same-day grocery delivery only widens its moat to defend against challengers. Plus, cloud unit Amazon Web Services, back in growth mode , spins off enough cash to make going against Amazon’s cyber-stores a fool’s errand. Which leaves one other place to go: the enterprise. In the “Oedipus Rex” of our time, Altman may have no choice but to challenge Microsoft at its own game. The 27% stake that Microsoft has in Altman’s entity might not matter to the man who will eventually recognize how cornered he is. Sure, there are other routes for OpenAI. Altman can buy Reddit, a terrific idea if only to block others from that amazing advertising vehicle and its trove of audience-generated content that is great to train models on. The best of Hobson’s choice: Altman could write a check to Apple to make ChatGPT the pre-loaded AI model on its operating systems. The check will have to be a big one as Gemini is the presumed choice. Sadly, at least for the market, I think he will attack every hyperscaler, given his Alex Karp-like ego. Karp is the longtime CEO and co-founder of Palantir . So what happens if Altman does? No single company has that kind of money needed to attack all comers. I think we got a glimpse of what could occur when we got the gaffe of all tech gaffes: OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar uttering the word “backstop” at a Wall Street Journal conference in early November. The quick denouement: Altman spends so much that perhaps a teetering OpenAI becomes a national champion with government-backed loans, the presumption being that President Donald Trump can’t let it fail. A failure this proportion could set back our whole bulwark against the Chinese in an AI race rife with national security concerns. In that situation, everyone makes out well and the market actually soars. I’ll take it. Or, Microsoft, sensing OpenAI’s peril, knows that the true value of OpenAI is now much lower than anyone thinks, so Microsoft crams its child down and buys it for several hundred billion, a totally satisfactory answer even if it means that Nvidia has one less customer. The market is reassured that the spend was all worth it and everything resumes the upward climb. Another possibility: The market stops allowing Oracle to build new data centers and cuts off OpenAI’s credit, with no one coming to its rescue. In that scenario the worry would be awful: wave after wave of companies producing shortfalls as everything is over-built. That is the Thursday scenario, the one that produced that painful Nvidia reversal after its spectacular earnings report the prior evening. I think the repudiation occurred because of a version of what I just traced out. Part of that version included an April 2000 nightmare, that fateful middle of the month tech estrangement when the money poured out of that group and headed to safety stocks like Johnson & Johnson , Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble , hence our recent buy of the latter because it had been the only one left behind. (Memo to second-guessers: Exiting Johnson & Johnson and Google were huge misses of mine, and I know that well. I just waited for them to come down and they never did). Now we are in a benign period, not that we weren’t when November began and we were told by the calendar investors that we would have a tremendous month. There are plenty of people who still think that we are still in “The Year Of Magical Investing.” These believers will continue to think that’s where we are until the money is taken away, which is what will happen. There are others who are willing to skate past the denouement to where April 2000 resides. There are others who think that they can sell all of the tech giants, except Alphabet and Apple, not a terrible hedge. In the end, though, if things play out as the “TBOY” hosts suggest, we do have to go through some turmoil as OpenAI flails and we wait for the positive – or negative — theses play out. Either way, know this: Alphabet has won in the most logical of battles. Let’s hope that Altman knows Trump and it all works out, as it did with Intel , in the end. (Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust is long META, AMZN, NVDA, AAPL and PG. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Trending
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024
