According to The Ecologist, the technological fixes for global warming are untested, dangerous, expensive, and probably ineffective. (See the chart below.)
This may all be true, but as more than one scientist pointed out at this year's American Geophysical Union conference, if the news about global warming is as bad as some fear, we really may not have a choice but to begin to research these technologies.
Now Chris Mooney, probably our best young science journalist, writes a column on "When Will Geo-Engineering Tip?" for Science Progress (here). This will not make The Ecologist happy, I predict…
…for me the surprise is that Mooney argues that geo-engineering will likely be "cheap." To which one can only ask the old jazz question: Compared to what? But to be fair, as Jeff Masters of Wunderblog reported from the AGU this year, some possible solutions do look reasonably priced…if goofy.
Kit Stolz 
Its pretty simple. All the risks outweigh the benefits. Each solution listed is trying to alleviate the current destruction of the ecosystem by destroying it using a different method.
The only solution is reducing our ecological footprint, not increasing it.
LikeLike
Many scientists agree, but imagine this scenario. Suppose we develop credible information that because the warming of the Arctic is proceeding more rapidly than we feared, a massive methane release is in the offing, and if we do not succeed in reducing overall temperatures immediately, the planet will overheat catastrophically within a decade’s time, with a good chance for runaway global warming, or what James Hansen calls “the Venus Syndrome.” Would you then consider this sort of extreme remedy?
LikeLike
I read the post in haste, and assumed that these schemes were to counteract active CO2 emissions.
So, yes, I would be all for any remedy to an extreme situation. But would you agree that this scenario will have very bad consequences for the human race? I see it as being trapped in a burning building where staying is certain death, or taking the chance of falling 25 feet to escape the flames. Death is very likely, and serious injury is practically guaranteed.
LikeLike
The Venus Syndrome? You don’t understand the gist of climate engineering, the most favored proposal is the use of Sulfuric Acid, which is also CO2! I’m trying to understand how CO2 causes global warming but now we’re told it can be used to COOL the earth? Also, David Keith, Environmental Scientist at The American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference in February 2010 stated: “It’s an empirical question how people will actually react to knowledge about this and if their reaction is to say, these crazy scientists are so concerned about putting CO2 in the atmosphere, they want to think about these things, and that might actually mean we ought to be more serious about the risk of CO2 in the atmosphere. And by the way, it’s not really a moral hazard it’s more like free riding on our grand kids.”
Aside from the environmental fallout,you cannot imagine the catastrophic consequences to humans. The suggested aerosol materials to be used in Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering are Sulfuric Acid, Soot and Aluminum Dioxide and there is talk of downsizing to nano particulates, all extremely toxic to living things, you included. ISo is it alright to sacrifice a few thousand people per year in order to save a few thousand others? The fact is that the most vulnerable loose… due to the consequences of geoengineering.
Science has gone too far on this one, anyone who cares about the environment should be outraged! I cannot imagine scientists would be allowed to replace mother nature. What about the proposed “Land use changes” where natural land would be modified by planting light colored grasses and replacing existing agricultural crops with genetically modified ones and forests full of GMO tress? Yes, the Venus syndrome, that’s where we are headed if we allow the the mad scientists free reign, they will be sure to recreate it for us!
LikeLike