> While it is likely that SAI could reduce global temperature, it has many serious risks and would not perfectly offset climate change. [...] this low-altitude strategy requires three times more injection than high-altitude SAI, and so would strongly increase side-effects such as acid rain.
I'm not opposed to the science behind geo-engineering. What I am opposed to is the weaponising of this kind of science to justify continuance of the industrial trends which are causing the problem. So, if you are here from the oil and coal and gas sectors arguing "we don't need to deal with the 45% fugitive gas and other leakage from our industry" please don't do that.
This kind of remediation might be a least worst choice we need to understand. It is not the way to avoid having to make a transition in the industrial base, and our dependency on it.
The transition is underway. It is spotty, it has issues, It is not overnight possible to stop production of GHG, or simply turn off the gas-cocks. That doesn't mean we should stop thinking about how to reduce dependency, and how to be able to turn off the tap.
ggm•9mo ago
I'm not opposed to the science behind geo-engineering. What I am opposed to is the weaponising of this kind of science to justify continuance of the industrial trends which are causing the problem. So, if you are here from the oil and coal and gas sectors arguing "we don't need to deal with the 45% fugitive gas and other leakage from our industry" please don't do that.
This kind of remediation might be a least worst choice we need to understand. It is not the way to avoid having to make a transition in the industrial base, and our dependency on it.
The transition is underway. It is spotty, it has issues, It is not overnight possible to stop production of GHG, or simply turn off the gas-cocks. That doesn't mean we should stop thinking about how to reduce dependency, and how to be able to turn off the tap.