|
|
|
|
|
|
by civilian
1741 days ago
|
|
|
hmmm. Everything has a trade-off, including of risk. I think your blanket statement against geoengineering has got to be wrong. Geoengineering is a broad category, and it'd probably be better if we split it into specific strategies. Why are olivine beaches at least as likely to make the problem worse? Why is injecting Sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere at least as likely to make the problem worse? Why are shade satellites at least as likely to make the problem worse? Are the risks associated with these strategies really worse than 2.7+ C of global warming? |
|
|
Sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere: unknown impact on ozone layer. Unknown possible chemistry in high radiation environment. Unknown effect on weather patterns. Unknown chance to fall back down to earth. Reductions of incoming solar radiation have unknown effects on all ecosystems on the planet. Extremely dangerous to try.
Shade satellites: similar concerns as above, except for ozone layer, chemical reactions, risk of raining down. Production of the huge number of satellites needed to matter has risky environmental costs. Huge number of objects in orbit will greatly accelerate orbital collisions, may destroy the constellation before it has any real effect.
The risks are currently inestimable, while the risk of 2.7C is at least understood.
On the other hand, reducing carbon emissions is doable, and has little risk of negatively impacting the environment. It's the right solution, and any time wasted by delaying it with promises of Geoengineering is criminal.