Geoengineering Debated
This is from the website of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
Has the time come for geoengineering?
Scientists have long studied and debated the promises and perils of deliberately influencing Earth's weather and climate systems. But today, faced with ever more pessimistic predictions about the pace of global warming and the irrevocable damage it could do to the planet, some are talking seriously about implementing theoretical geoengineering schemes such as blocking the sun as an emergency response.
In "20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea" PDF (from the May/June 2008 Bulletin), Alan Robock raises a host of scientific, social, and ethical issues posed by geoengineering. Now, Robock and four fellow discussants debate how to weigh geoengineering’s potential benefits against its negative consequences. . .
The site then offers the first two installments of the debate, namely "Climate engineering: Not a panacea, but necessary nonetheless?" by Ken Caldeira, and "Geoengineering could buy the time needed to develop a sustainable energy economy" by Dan Whaley and Margaret S. Leinen.
We'd also encourage you to read a short essay by Martin Bunzl titled "An Ethical Assessment of Geoengineering," which is included as a sidebar in the PDF article referenced above.
There are no easy answers to the challenges of dangerous climate change and the invariably problematic solutions on offer. But it's high time that we begin learning about and debating what we can do, and what we should do.
Noted Australian envrironmentalist Tim Flannery (Australian of the year 2007 and with the ear of government) is pushing for an emergency option for reversing climate change involving atmospheric sulfur release to induce global dimming. See http://www.theage.com.au/news/global-warming/radical-plan-to-save-planet/2008/05/19/1211182701986.html
Posted by: marko | May 19, 2008 at 06:35 AM