The Arctic is heating up quickly, but scientists say polar geoengineering would cause ‘severe environmental damage’

3 comments

1. It would.

   That is very obviously not going to stop it from happening.

   It’s not even about the full cost-benefit analysis at this point, let alone an earnest discussion of externalities. Someone’s going to lose enough money from the wandering polar vortex to pay for it to be ‘taken care of’. And no one is going to stop them.

2. Why spend on geoengineering instead of on renewables, nuclear, replacing fossil fuels with electricity, EVs and car alternatives, insulating homes, etc. while we’re still burning fossil fuels?

3. All but 2 of the ideas they examined in this paper seemed like sci-fi nonsense. Those remaining 2 (aerosol injection and ocean fertilization) are less nonsense, but ocean fertilization would cause more issues for the tropical area according to the study, and aerosol injection would / could pollute the environment if we insist on sulphur.

   At least those 2 could be improved to an extent, but the other ideas that are apparently up for consideration made my engineering brain headbutt a brick wall.

Comments are closed.