Analysis : The Naysayers See Nothing But Risks When Analyzing Geoengineering

Climate change is not a new concept. It has been mostly referred to as global warming in the past. As much as people would like to file this issue away as something to deal with at a later date, it simply cannot wait. This problem we face is costing us billions of dollars, forests and wildlife are being eliminated, and people are dying. Starting to sound like a big deal, right? Future generations will be affected the most. People who do not even exist will have to pay for what we, all people, have done to this earth. To begin to make changes, one must realize the severity of the issue. Bill Mckibben, author of “Recalculating the Climate Math,” conveys that “We’ve already raised the world’s temperature by one degree—enough to melt almost half the ice in the Arctic, kill off huge swaths of the world’s coral, and unleash lethal floods and drought. July and August tied for the hottest months ever recorded on our planet, and scientists think they were almost certainly the hottest in the history of human civilization” (Page 3 of 5). Global climate change is a serious problem because it increases natural disasters and is the cause of extreme weather.

Assess the potential environmental impact of a proposed construction project on the local natural environment.

“In the absence of concerted action by the world’s governments, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will cause global temperatures to increase between 3 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century” (Ranson 2). Gradually, this rise in temperature causes changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and a decrease in snow cover that enables a broad range of climatic shifts to take place. Considering such sudden environmental decay, there is a very limited time frame to gather scientific data that shape public and foreign policy. Therefore, when monetarily analyzing climate change it is important to

The Global Warming theory has become increasingly popular over the past few years. Citizens of the world are being encouraged to be more environmentally conscious by others including politicians, celebrities, and world organizations. The problem with the theory lies in the fact that it has become more and more controversial as it gains publicity and attention. The basic concept behind this theory is that the earth was made with a balance of “greenhouse gasses”. These gasses are naturally occurring within the atmosphere and they essentially make the planet habitable by keeping it warm.

The article primarily appeals to individuals with interest in global warming. The main point that Wood focuses on is the idea of sulfur-aerosol injection, in which sulfur dioxide would be pumped into the sky. However, there are several issues with this concept that he addresses in his article.

One of the solutions is geoengineering. It’s considerably cheap that even middle-income countries could utilize it single-handed. This shows that geoengineering could possibly help, but in order for it to work, all greenhouse gases must be removed from the earth’s atmosphere. Porter mentions how figuring out how to combat global warming on the cheap side is difficult due to the fact we continue on to exploit fossil fuels. The final thing Porter mentions is how the worst case for the deployment of geoengineering is the possible threat of a nuclear war. The thought of war is a terrifying subject, making the reader feel compelled to learn more about global warming, and thinking of possible ways to educate others. When arguments are convincing, it makes it hard for the readers to

It is becoming increasingly certain that climate change will have severe adverse effects on the environment in years to come. Addressing this issue poses a serious challenge for policy makers. How we choose to respond to the threat of global warming is not simply a political issue. It is also an economic issue and an ethical one. Responsible, effective climate change policy requires consideration of a number of complex factors, including weighing the costs of implementing climate change policies against the benefits of more environmentally sustainable practices. Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic condition.

personally believe geoengineering could be a controversy which can result of being good and bad. Therefore we can combat global warming by controlling the amounts of substances by the chemical element of atomic being straight into the atmosphere, it could result of canceling out the glob warming effects. If not maybe at least the high tempters would decree. Furthermore by achieving and controlling the amounts of dioxide, we could transform aerosols which they would be in charge of reflecting all the light back to space. This process of global warming is being presented because of the causes of carbon dioxide being cause manly from humans. As humans we need to help ourselves by helping the earth. For example we could rid our bakes instead of

Global Warming is paradoxical in nature. Global Warming siphons moisture from the ground while causing sea levels to rise. Most frighteningly, many in our government do not take global warming seriously. The amount of O2 or carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has exponentially increased since the end of the last ice age. Gradual change is anticipated as one progresses through ions of time, however it was come to global attention that carbon dioxide levels are rising way to high in way too short of a time frame. To understand this phenomena it is key to understand that the Earth's atmosphere is its most vulnerable component. Intellectual Bob Sagan argues that the Earths atmosphere is the eviqualent of a globe painted with varnish. When light

In “Kyoto Climate Change Conference”, Al Gore, the Former Vice President of the United States, calls on the heads of state to take action on reducing emissions and protecting the Earth 's environment. Gore mentions environmental problems such as polluted water, dirty air, and destruction of critical habitats that we are experienced have threatened people’s living and future. Gore highlights aerosphere, the most important and most vulnerable part the Earth’s environment, are damaged by gaseous wastes which stops aerosphere dissipating heat and lead to the global warm. Moreover, he emphasizes the global warm causes more serious consequence such as floods, droughts, stronger storms, rising sea level, etc. which will affect the survival of

This article provided a unique way to catch the attention of a general audience that may not have a basic understanding of the science in global climate change. By diving into the significant changes in the climate all over the world; such as the ice caps melting, the author provides the reasoning behind why scientists are seriously considering geoengineering as a way to mitigate the effects of climate change. In order to provide a visualization of geoengineering to the general public, author Eduardo Porter compares it to a Sci-Fi movie called “Snowpiercer” that came out in 2013. This comparison gives an example of a dystopian world suddenly thrown into an ice age, where the only survivors are on a train perpetually circling the globe. While

In addition to the above argument Flannery discussed the second way of climate change mitigation by Geo-engineering. This is the technology that involves dramatically interfering to the Earth’s systems; for instance, injecting Sulpur into the stratosphere to cool the Earth’s surface (4.Keith 2000). However, he pointed out considerable deficiencies in the scheme due to (a) major practical problems (b) uncertain outcomes and (c) guarantee of international conflict (5.Atmosphere of hope 2005, p.141) Moreover, Flannery explained the negative consequences of Stratospheric Sulphur; for instance, could alter global weather patterns, crop growth inhibition, lead further destruction of the ozone layer and acid rains (6.The Conversation 2008). Thus,

One of the first men to give thought into geoengineering was Nils Gustaf Ekholm, a Swedish meteorologist who in 1901 “speculated about the possibility of climate modification via engineered enhancements of [carbon dioxide] emission” because he believed that elevated carbon dioxide had beneficial effects on climate and plant growth (415, Keith 2000). Decades later, geoengineering, known in the 1950’s and 1960’s as ‘weather control,’ was mainly seen as a way to improve the natural state or mitigate natural hazards. Both the Soviet Union and the United States were the leading countries interested in this ‘weather control,’ and from the 1930’s through World War II both countries conducted experiments dealing mostly with cloud manipulation and precipitation. For example, a Soviet experiment during the winter of 1960-61 is reported to have cleared clouds over an area of 20,000 square kilometers (Keith 2000). In 1946, the United States General Electric research labs discovered cloud seeding which sparked a huge interest in weather modification within the country. It was not until 1965 that the attention was shifted from modification of weather to the modification of climate in order to fix the carbon dioxide problem, which is the center of interest today. David W. Keith spoke about this transition in his article Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect:

The world continuously faces a variety of threats every day, from natural disasters to terrorist, but one threat that society predominately contributes to all on their own, is climate change. There are many feasible explanations for the global threat of climate change. These explanations include but are not limited to, the act of deforestation to the rainforest and other trees, green house gas emissions, and sulfate aerosol, which cause poor air quality.

The proposals of reducing sunlight with the installation of a network of giant solar reflectors in space, and the artificial generation of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere are ideas that we may have to consider in a nearer future than some may think. The latter approach, which could be achieved by burning sulfur or hydrogen sulfide in the stratosphere, would be a lot like a volcanic eruption such as that of Pinatubo in 1991, the difference being that the geoengineering aim would require the equivalent of a Pinatubo every four years or so (Oppenheimer 2011). Although it does not help as far as CO2 is concerned, but it can alleviate the problem while the long-term CO2 removal plans are being employed. There was a project called SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) who had a team from the UK, with University of Bristol, the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh collaborating.