Climate Geoengineering is usually seperated into two categories;
1) Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
2) Solar Radiation Management (SRM)My research aim is to gauge the public on their perceptions of the following SRM methods as well their perceptions of the risks of such technology.
I would like you, the public, to read the following text and watch the short video before commenting on the bottom of this post anything you would like to say about SRM or the individual technologies highlighted.
It would be very helpful for me and my research if you could also make a comment about any risks you think could be associated when it comes to implementing these strategies.
Your comments can be as negative or positive as you like, each one will be anonymous.
As a result of your help, I will begin to understand what the publics perception of SRM is and come to conclusions into why, out of the two categories, SRM is less favoured by the public.
An introduction to SRM
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is the method which attempts to offset the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations by increasing the albedo of the Earth. In other words, lowering the Earth's absorption of solar radiation. It is worth mentioning that this method, unlike CDR, does not attempt to reduce emissions but slow the effects of increased anthropogenic emissions.
This short video explains what SRM is exactly and highlights some of the methods involved in SRM as well explaining some of the costs and benefits of the technology.
Source: courtesy of the Environmental Defence Fund
The following selections of SRM methods are highlighted in the video above. There are 3 main types of SRM methods. Each have been considered as potential solutions to slow the effects of climate change and global warming.
Space Based
Terrestrial Albedo ModificationSpace Based
- Mirrors in space - this method could deflect a percentage of solar sunlight into space.
- Mining moon dust - this method could create a shielding cloud from solar radiation.
- Cool Roof - Painting pavements and roof materials in white or pale colours to reflect solar radiation, known as 'cool roof' technology, is encouraged by legislation in some areas. This is a benign technique, and it can reduce the need for air conditioning.
- Farming, Forestry, and Land Management - Reforestation in tropical areas has a cooling effect.
- Deforestation of high-latitude - As high-altitude forests exposes snow that increases albedo. Changes to grassland could increase albedo, and selecting or genetically modifying commercial crops with high albedo has been suggested.
- Stratospheric Sulfur Aerosols- This modifies the Earth's albedo with reflective or absorptive materials spread over portions of its surface.
- Cloud Seeding - proposes the use of airliners to distribute the cloud-seeding materials or the burning of sulfur in ships or power plants to form sulfate aerosol in order to stimulate additional low marine clouds to reflect sunlight.
Hopefully this has given you a good basic knowledge on what SRM is, the next step is to comment in the box below. Please also feel free to respond to other peoples comments as this is your voice. Just a quick note as well, at the bottom of the screen there is a drop down menu, if you click on this it will have an 'anonymous' option for the comments, it would be great if you could use this please.
I would like to thank all of you who took part, with out you this would not be possible for me to accomplish my research.
If there are any problems or would like to know more please email me at 'yourvoicesrm@gmail.com'
Thanks
Scott Sleight
I would say my following comments are best categorised as coming from someone who is aware of the growing problem of greenhouse gasses and concerning environmental changes, who appreciates that something needs to be done to stop this development, but is someone who is not associated or in direct contact with this field of research, work, and development. For that reason, my lack of knowledge on the topic will be prevalent as I write.
ReplyDeleteMy overriding opinion of SRM's after having read this blog and watched the video, is that they are an attempt from scientists to strike a compromise between policy makers, the public, and the pressing need to act. This is because SRM's do not reverse or alleviate the problem as such, they just stem it off. And it is clear that the scientists in the video want the public to know that it is by no means a solution, but rather that SRM's exist simply because society/politicians will not allow a more stringent and effective system to be put in place that would give us a real chance of staving off the amount of damage.
So from this, the pursuit of SRM's is indicative of a world unwilling to take too much responsibility for the pollutants that we all churn out in mass quantities, leaving a small, specialised population to come to solutions that neither side is happy with but which, in the short term, will at least hold off the problem that's fast encroaching.
And perhaps the irony to come from this is that, as I write, I am aware that I am as much a culprit of naivity and a lack of interest in these concerns as the people I indict. So, what I have taken most from this blog, therefore, is the absolute necessity of bringing this issue to the doors of every individual, like a political campaign of sorts, because without this there is danger we will all remain in a comfortable abyss of ignorance....until a time when perhaps it is too late.
I would largely agree with the comment's above, but I think this may be a realistic solution to prevent short term warming. GHG emissions are probably not going to get reduced for some time to come when taking the developing world into account. Though it does not provide a solution to the problem maybe it will provide enough time to react fully to this issue.
ReplyDeleteOn a side not maybe it might act as a catalyst for a change in the public's outlook on climate change, really hitting home that it is a serious issue.
Following on the comments above one of hte worrying issues in this debate is that the assumption of the effectiviness is based on modelling and as we have been thaught "all models are wrong but some are useful". What I am trying to say with this is that only when we apply these techniques we will be able to determine the potential detrimental side effects of these technologies. These effect, as they state in the video, can be significants; such as the change in the precipation patterns. This implies a potential huge gamble, based on modellling, with livelihood and perhaps potentialy human lives which raises ethical concerns from my point of view.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the statements above that applying this technology could lead to lack of action in tackling the real issue behind the drivers of the climate change. However, the research question seems relevant and I like to state that by consulting and informing the public in early stage is a positive thing, as long as politician, multinationals or other groups do not hijack the idea by reducing their efforts in in carbon reduction or by running away with patents on these technologies to make "big bucks".
Although the video suggests that SRM methods involving terrestrial albedo management will only impact 'local climate' and wont halt global warming trends - I think this highlights a dominant issue when it comes to climate change action/inaction. Straying from local scale solutions means that individuals are not learning, and given the encouragement, that they can make a difference within their locality to assist with offsetting this problem.
ReplyDeleteFurthering on from this, in my opinion, it is these terrestrial albedo management techniques that have least unknowns in terms of what they will do to global climate - as well as any implications for ecosystem services.
Therefore, the impact they have on 'cooling' the Earth may be more 'local' and not as immediate but rather than space based techniques, or atmospheric projects, they are more engaging with public involvement and arguably less detrimental.
I also concur with what was said in the video, that these techniques do nothing to resolve the devastating impact of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on ocean acidification.
Those in favour of geoenginering may see it as a way of 'buying time', but climate systems have tipping points. This is evident from past climate change - long before man's influence. Although the past is not prescriptive for the future there is no telling in truth how long we have before/if the impacts of global warming will pose serious threats to human populations on Earth. So there is no 'buying time' as nature simply wont allow it - furthermore these techniques could cause climate tipping points themselves!
It is understandable that these geoengineering techniques have been looked into. As past records have shown us, climate change can be abrupt - therefore as a worst case scenario where human life is under severe jeopardy such techniques could be used. I would however argue more research and modelling needs to be done to see how effective they are but also how they impact other systems, such as ocean circulations or biosphere carbon fluxes.
I therefore feel, in a level of agreement with the video, that geoengineering should not be used unless there is satisfactory knowledge that it wont effect the climate system so much so that it poses further hazards to human life and the environment, and only in a situation when quick deployment could prevent devastation to human populations. I certainly don't see it as a method that should be implemented and relied upon for long periods of time simply to offset warming, as it really is just brushing the root problem under the carpet.
Humans have severely disrupted the Earth's wonderful capacity to function as a natural biological pump of carbon dioxide; thus controlling global atmospheric temperatures. Surely it is only advantageous in the long run to be more respectful of this natural cycle by reducing fossil fuel consumption rather than to further frustrate the earth systems by 'toying' with natural levels of solar radiation reaching the atmosphere, seas and continents.
Firstly I would like to state that I had no knowledge of such methods being proposed. They are fascinating. I would love to see some of them implemented but, personally, the more low key ones sound most appealing.
ReplyDeleteI do not like the idea of deforestation at high altitude as I believe we should be preserving any trees we have.
Regarding the insertion of aerosols into the atmosphere I an wondering how much research has been done to determine whether they would be benign or not. If so I would be all for that.
I am unsure of the extra-terrestrial methods too. This is namely for practical reasons though such as cost, ease of maintenance/monitoring and interference with orbital paths of existing satellites.
So as I said, low key strategies sound very appealing (we can keep flat roofs as green and have the slanted roofs white) as do some larger scale projects such as large mirror farms.
Seems like there is a long way still to go but it would help for the big names in politics to, at the very least, mention SRM's be they for or against to gain it some publicity.
Mirrors in space - expensive. lots of energy would be used in putting them up there and managing them. We're not that efficient in space yet. Painting roofs white, pointing mirrors upwards or even better turning the sun into the energy we can use (though solar panels, or even growing plants (crops/trees) would be far mare useful I think.
ReplyDeleteRe-forestation in general, putting back forests where they were, great idea. Planting trees can't be a bad thing. If we want/need to undo this or otherwise manage its effect, it won't be too difficult.
Cloud seeding, by plane or ship, I wouldn't be too keen on. I think we should concentrate on allowing the atmosphere to manage itself (through algea, trees, snow, glaciers etc) rather than putting more s*** in the sky to counter what we've already put there
Conclusion, we should grow more (all plants reduce CO2), or otherwise make good use of the solar energy we are supplied with. We've got no excuse really, to continue burning fossil fuels to make us cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. Moving energy from the sunny side of the planet to the winter end would be far more effective.
The first person makes a very good point, as does the video, in terms of not allowing the Geoengineering techniques to over-take/shadow the R&D and implementation need of carbon reduction technologies; nor the passive action of adopting these techniques as a 'solution'.
ReplyDeleteAs stated there are so many unknowns and potentially disastrous consequences of altering the earth's systems further that we must be careful, however that does not mean nothing should be done for fear of unknown consequences. The Precautionary Principle can be taken into account and cost/benefit analysis be taken when looking at the proposed SRM techniques. For example where it is possible man-made surfaces should be lightened, to produce a greater Albedo effect, although this may only have a local effect (as another person states) it is calculable and predictable (and frankly better than nothing) especially as the subsequent result would be an increase in public awareness to SRM techniques and greater public engagement with issues surrounding climate change in general. Tree planting is another local but well known entity that if managed properly is more of a 'solution' than other SRM techniques, as it captures and thus reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rather than attempting to reflect energy that should/could be harnessed (as suggested through solar panels) and has many other environmental and social benefits.
Historically we have seen the results of large volcanic eruptions, emitting particles into the atmosphere, thus creating a cooling effect, and can potentially replicate the conditions to 'buy time' in terms of moderating the global temperature - though this would be an extreme, as other consequences to the environment and society result from this interference. Nevertheless it is a ‘known’ and therefore an option.
Basically - it should come down to a matter of calculated risk. I am in favour of combining the 'known' SRM techniques with carbon reduction strategies as I believe that climate change and rising carbon dioxide levels can be tackled from a range of different angles; and the level of input, capital and engagement will vary quite extensively from climate zone to climate zone, country to country and even district to district. As all have different resources, cultural understandings, infrastructures and legislation. Therefore SRM techniques should not be ruled out but need to be realised for what they are… a side offering/supplement to carbon reduction techniques and nothing more.
I disagree with the use of SRM until it is proven to be effective on the scale that is necessary to significantly reduce emissions. It seems to me that most SRM techniques would not be very cost effective compared to adaptation and mitigation.
ReplyDeleteIt feels too much like patching up the symptoms rather than spending money on reducing emissions now - which should be prioritised in my opinion. However having said that, it is comforting to know that these options could be explored if we fall to prevent dangerous climate change. I guess that is the technocentric speaking in me, but to deploy mass SRM would definitely feel as if we were 'holding back the flood gates' which is a significant long term risk.
I would say that SRM seems to be a selection of methods that range from the stupid and nonsense to the relatively achievable. For example the the idea of mining moon dust to create a protective 'shield' is a ridiculous notion. On the other hand I wouldn't be at all phased by some of the methods including painting buildings with lighter colours or reforestation (however which in its self could effect the ecology of the area, so this needs to be monitored correctly). There are a couple of other things that do worry me though. Firstly if the SRM method is implemented then it could lower the urgency of GHG emissions reduction from the governments and indeed the public, which for me is not a very good option. Secondly I worry about the governance of this particular type of Geoengineering. If some SRM methods are implemented, such as cloud seeding, then how do we govern the upper stratosphere which currently doesn't have any governance. In my conclusion these methods need to be researched further and a governance system needs to be set up as I can see conflicts occurring.
ReplyDeleteA very interesting topic of discussion, thanks for the invite to get involved. It sounds like you have taken on a hotly debated topic of research.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it seems unlikely any of the more extreme SRM techniques will be used any time soon, and there is much scepticism surrounding them, I think it is important that time and money is spent looking into these ideas further. One day they might really need to be used!
I do however agree with the general consensus that a much larger spending of time and money should be invested in developing renewables and lowering emissions.
Can I ask why you have decided to focus just on SRM and not Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)?
I would like to start by stating my interest in this area as close to zero, and say that English is my second language but I hope that my comment will be understandable. And that my interest in global warming is low probably putting me in a group of people that will run this planet to it's death.
ReplyDeleteTo start of with I find it kind of amusing that the mankind coming up with these ideas instead of solving the problem that we actually created ourselves. But not to comment on that bureaucracy, politics and economy make the change way to slow in some areas of the earth. Because I'm pretty sure that some countries can make so much more effort to reduce their emissions.
I find the technology in SRM pretty interesting but most of the pretty unlikely to happen. And maby more important unlikely to work. Must just push on that I actually don't have any knowledge if it so I hope that I'm wrong and this is the future. But the space stuff sounds amazing but as previous comments said that it would cost to much both in energy and money. Messing with the climate feels like playing catch with a lion or something similar. And the stuff on land "Terrestrial Albedo Modification" seems like way to expensive and unlikely to do any actually different.
I like the idea of clever inventions taking human mankind out of the trouble, but I see these most unlikely. Especially get it to go through this bureaucracy when smalls stuff like for an example forbidding the old light-bulb making energy saving ones the only on in the market not being applied in most of the countries.
There is ways to stop global warming. But according to me srm feels like stopping an aeroplane by building a longer runaway instead of actually using the breaks on it. Very complicated, expensive, fun technology thou, but not really solving the problem.
I Love your analogy at the end!
DeleteTwo issues immediately spring to mind.
ReplyDelete1. This has to be a global approach as reflective technology of one country could affect another, which introduces the nightmare of international law.
2. Like many of these technologies, it does not deal with the acidification of the oceans.
I'm going to start out by saying I know little to none about any of this. And I'd never come across any of these ideas before today. They're very interesting, if a little...unusual. Still can't quite get my head around the fact that volcanoes actually cool the earth.
ReplyDeleteOften the simplest ideas are the best, so I'd say that painting the roof of your house is much more effective than throwing sea water in the air. And of course, growing more trees can only be a good thing. But some of the options seem to be too ridiculous when there are other solutions available.
Watching this video also highlights the way this information is portrayed to us. Mixing scientific charts, graphs and images of human suffering, this instructional video becomes an emotionally charged piece. Perhaps it's also worth noting the absence of these ideas in our society, while others are well-known and discussed- are these recent studies or have they been around for a while?
I think placing these ideas into the public eye and beginning discussion would definitely be insightful. But I think that apart from the simple ideas (painting houses roofs) and the ones we are already aware of (planting trees), most of these do not seem to be cost or time effective. But then, I think wind farms are awesome and that we should have those everywhere, so I'm a little biased.
I am in no way knowledgeable about this topic but it seems to me that the risks from the suggested methods are too high to take such drastic steps for a quicker solution. if there is a greater international compulsory push for carbon reduction techniques this could be more effective until a more risk free method has been found or the risks from the existing methods have a fool proof means of being remedied. Too risk I say.
ReplyDeleteI always think that scientists are good at talking about things. Hypothising about what we should be doing, but getting no nearer to acheiving an answer. We have to try things out however unpopular they might be. Politicians are inempt and weak, they just look at their own polularity and saving their own necks at the next election. The shame is, there are very few Lloyd Georges in politics, people with conscience!
ReplyDeleteWe need a solution and soon because the next generations are going to be feeling very let down by our negligence, but I know where that final design will come from. Not from the scientists or the ploiticians but the quiet deserving undercurrent of Mechanical/ Electrical/ Chemical engineers whose job will be to make it work....
I am not sure if all of you have missed out on a point. We all want (currently) to live in a world of throw away and buy everthing on the cheap. All that you talk about is not going to fit into our so called modern world. We say big things but deep down we wont want to pay for it. I think what we need first is a social revolution, you know one not that far away from Gene Roddenbury's Star Trek. We should work together, everyone in this world, to better the whole of man kind. Not just the individual.
ReplyDeleteMoondust? Better off moving to the moon.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is fantastic to think that one day we could 'control' the natural forces that impact everything on the planet it goes without saying that at the end of the day we are contributing to rapid changes in climate. Such ideas as space mirrors and mining moon dust (lol) are not only crazy but are untested and are very likely to be extremely expensive. It would require huge commitment from the nations of the world which is not easy, let alone ask for financial contributions. These space ideas would be a massive achievement if they were successful, but whether they would work would always be the highest risk. It would be a massive financial gamble which is why this idea would be put to the back of the shelf.
ReplyDeleteChanging the weather using chemicals (seeding) is only a very short term solution. They are also expensive. However further research needs to be done on the cost benefits if it were to reduce flooding etc. this method though doesn't reduce climate change but instead adapts/limits the effects of climate change.
Option two is more likely to gather the most support publicly, politically and financially. While this does border on adaption it is a more realistic form of geoengineering. Although I personally wouldn't want a white roof. In terms of deforesting high altitudes and genetic engineering that's def a no. Genetic engineering should only be used for food. Using it for other purposes would be too higher risk and could just cause other environmental problems. As for deforestation, that's counter productive if you are deforesting other parts of the world.
I think the main issue with geo-engineering is that even before analysing the individual methods and their pros and cons, the concept as a whole is a convenient substitute for reducing carbon emissions. Even though it is stated that it is not, I think it would allow the majority of us to continue to ignore the issues of growing carbon emissions. If we don't do anything now, when we know there will be direct consequences, what would the incentive be to change our actions if we managed to prevent the worst immediate human impacts occurring?
ReplyDeleteHaving said this however, as the video states, political systems will likely be too slow to act to make any real difference. Indeed even if we somehow managed to cease all CO2 emissions today we would still be committed to a global temperature rise. Geo-engineering could buy us some time to consider longer term solutions, but I still feel that the majority of SRM methods should only be used as a last resort option, if at all.
The space based methods seem relatively unlikely options due to logistical and financial limitations and I can't really see them being taken seriously as possibilities.
The atmospheric projects seem to be full of too many unknowns to be viable options. To pump aerosols into the atmosphere without fully understanding the consequences would be foolish as well as dangerous, and as a previous commenter noted, all models are wrong, so there is no way of predicting all the possible side effects. The international cooperation required to implement such a project also seems unfeasible, as borders don't exist in the stratosphere. Also while some places could see benefits from atmospheric SRM, others could be worse off and I could see the technology being abused in this way so that improving certain areas would come at the expense of other regions where drought and conflict could be caused.
Some of the terrestrial modifications also don't appeal, particularly deforestation at high latitudes as although it may increase albedo surely this would be negated somewhat by decreased carbon fixation? On the other hand the cool roof idea seems a good one and relatively inexpensive to implement. Although the mitigation effect would be relatively minimal it would surely still be worthwhile.
I think more awareness of SRM techniques is definitely needed, as if ever implemented they are something that could affect everyone. It seems to me that the very idea of humans having to deliberately alter the climate through such drastic methods brings home how serious a situation we are in with anthropogenic global warming. If scientists are seriously considering such radical actions, the situation must be relatively urgent. So perhaps wider coverage of geo-engineering may encourage people/companies/governments to seek alternatives and be more willing to implement other mitigation strategies, for instance carbon taxation or greater reliance on renewables, that may require some personal sacrifice but have far fewer 'unintended consequences'.
It seems that there are too many unknown risks for some of the methods of SRM proposed; my main concern is interferring with the hydrological cycle such as by pushing up sea water to make clouds. First of all, the effects sound like they would only occur locally anyway, but other detrimental effects, such as on fishing communities, would be more widespread and often in marginalised areas. Whether the effects could be reversed if significant problems were found, I do not know, but it seems to be a big risk and may impact communities who have less of a voice.
ReplyDeleteSome methods are more appropriate; painting pavements and roofs and reforestation - which has many other benefits too. Deforestation at high latitudes is definately not the way to go. Forested areas have many other benefits, most notably carbon storage. Deforestation in these areas seems like a very blinkered idea.
Overall, some methods which are less intrusive into natural cycles (e.g. painting) would be best and are unlikely to have knock-on and unexpected effects. The biggest risk is that research into emmision reductions could become overlooked, and SRM is simply prolonging the inevitable.
Essentially we are addicted to a way of life, and a level/type of emissions, that we know is bad for us and our environment. While some of the SRM technologies seem reasonable (others seem ridiculous) surely we should be dealing with our addiction in the first instance. If we simply apply SRM technologies I fear that our emissions/way of life will remain unchanged, and indeed we will simply use this as justification to extend the use of more polluting fuels, such as coal combustion. I would prefer to see much greater emphasis applied to reduced energy consumption, clean energy technologies, energy storage etc across the globe before we expend time, money and resources in SRM. If we can reduce our consumption, and therefore our emissions, surely this would reduce the amount of SRM required, and is ultimately more sustainable in the longer term. SRM seems a typically westernised/developed world approach to a problem without dealing with the fundamental problem itself. Like spending huge amounts of money trying to find a cure for lung cancer without first asking people to stop smoking/start excercising. Some SRM techniques are common sense/low budget and could easily be applied, others seem disproportinately resource intensive and I can't help but feel that their reserach and implementation would divert valuable resources which would be better applied elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI think more time and effort should be put into making changes for the future and dealing with the damage we have already done. Rather than trying to come up with a quick fix. And this quick fix may cause unimaginable damage to an already damaged planet. climate scientists themselves will admit that they still don't fully understand the complexity of the interlinking patterns of the earth, so why would they even consider proposing to carry out these SRM methods. Just like the industrial revolution we didn't fully understand the chemicals we were making and pumping into the atmosphere, this is just a modern repetition but on a much larger and more serious scale. We don't know the effects that could be caused. I find the thought of atmospheric projects absolutely terrifying.
ReplyDeleteHowever with that said, I do feel some of the smaller scale methods may help. Such as the cool roof technology, of which they are already using on London buses. Not for climate change but to keep the buses cool so they use less fuel cooling them down.
Rather than looking into these methods, the scientist who are in fact genuinely concerned should start lobbying for governments to ban the unrealistic arguments of whether climate change is happening. Make it clear to every day society that the scientist that are claiming its rubbish are actually being payed off by large companies who cant afford there to be such a thing as climate change.
I agree with research on the field of geo-ingineering. We need much more studies on this feeld to think about this possibilities more seriously. But anyway I am very sceptical about it. My main argument is that our knowledge about global climate is and will ever be very limited. We will never have enough data to be able seriously decide what active measures to use. The climate is too complex for us. Only think we can do is to adapt. We are able to measure climate trends and estimate our share on climate change. That is all we can do. We have a lot of opportunities how to transform our energy use. Renewables are here and their research and deployment go forward very rapidly. I expect that together with rising evidence of global warming we will increase our response. But because people are curious and there is some value to build as complex of physical world as we can I expect that research on the field of geo-engineering will continue.
ReplyDeleteA comparison with human medicine. If the patient is very ill doctors give him a strong drugs. And these strong life-saving drugs very often have strong side effects. So doctors have to give to patient together with one drug another one which balance the negative effect of the first one. And the second drug often causes another negative effects – so doctors have to give to patient third drug... and at the end patient can die 'poisoned by drugs'. This effectively happen very often in the treatment of seriously ill people. All doctors know that so they are the most happy if they do not need medicate their patients. Is there any difference with our treatment of climate change? Do we have to reach the state where this danger methods would be necessary?
I have to say that I don't have any knowledge about the SRM but it seems like a very interesting topic for the future discussions. However, as stated before, the most important issue is to cut down the burning of fossil fuels and mitigating the climate change rather than spend more money on technologies which can slow it down but actually not solving the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe video had a really good point at the end saying they did not want to take effort away from reducing emissions. However will there be funding and political support for SRM (some may find it controversial) - the climate does tend to get marginalised and we have yet to make the progress we need.
ReplyDeleteThanκs for sharing your thοughts on power Rating nfl.
ReplyDeleteRegards
I think the idea of solar radiation management is very little known to the general public. Unfortunately, for many people even the question of climate change is still a personal reflection on a subject rather than knowledge based on scientific evidence. In my opinion until there is a widespread consensus between scientists, world leaders and majority of the common folks from all countries on causes of climate change there will be a little interest for this sort of ideas. Some members of the public, especially those directly affected, could be scared by the idea of someone spreading aerosols above their houses. Potential fears could be: “Oh my god I am going to breathe this air…and that might cause cancer…?!”, “There is no sun for much of the year anyway and after this happens I will not see it for even longer. For how long it will last?!”, “I am a farmer and all my crops will freeze and die” and so on. Until there is enough scientific evidence to show that there will be no negative impact on human health and natural environment I would not support this type of activity. Generally, my attitude towards geo-engineering is quite positive. However, I would doubt that until any of the geo-engineering solution is tried in situ on a grand scale someone will be able to tell with 100% confidence what the effects will be.
ReplyDelete