This graphic sums up a range of geoengineering techniques quite nicely:
 |
| (Source: New Scientist, 2009) |
This graphic seems to suggest that aerosols are the most feasible way forward, in terms of effectiveness, readiness and cost. Yet the risks seem high, with unknown effects on the ozone and weather patterns. Does this mean that solar radiation management (SRM) methods are preferred overall?
Interesting how in 2009, the majority of flaws are 'unknown effects'. I'm hoping to find out if this is still the case in 2016 with subsequent posts.
Very interesting yet informative summary of the cost-benefit analysis of geoengeering. I look forward to learning from your subsquent posts how these elements play out and the environmental tradeoffs involved. I would be biased towards 'near term' solutions that are economically viable and cause 'less' harm.
ReplyDeleteGreat point, Asha. Cheaper options that are low risk and easily implemented as a short-term solution are most likely to be embraced by policy makers. But what if they're ineffective? Are we better off aiming for a high risk - high reward strategy? I suppose the current political climate would prefer economically viable options in an age of uncertainty.
DeleteAbsolutely loving this blog!
ReplyDeleteJust as you mention, there is suggestion that SRM is the most feasible option, but I guess it's important to bear in mind where this was produced, and for what reason.
Whilst purposefully attempting to be clear and concise, it is arguable that this has completely oversimplified what is quite a complex debate.
Firstly, what is meant by the term 'readiness'? Is this going on the basis of current funding and investment into the devleopment of each strategy as supported by the governments/economies of the West, or is it taking the period in which global readiness is achieved?
Likewise, there is a clear omission of wider implications. Simply narrowing the 'flaws' into just a few words doesn't do justice the significant detriment/uncertainty/debate associated with each strategy. Take afforestation, for example. 'Large land area needed' doesn't even begin to deal with the issues of food poverty, reduced biofuel production, land-ownership debates and settlement issues that are all fundamental to the argument about its viability as a strategy.
Great graphic and well presented - but super interested to see you how will be able to explore and critique the obvious dumbing down, and perhaps if you can determine whether the oversimplification is representative of western intentions and beliefs of the most suitable strategies!
I agree Sal - clearly a lot to pick apart in the graphic. Next up - aerosols!
DeleteDo you think these would ever be truly feasible? Do moral issues and potential risks attached outweigh the positives? Should we alter the climate any more than we already have, or do you think we should be accepting responsibility for the damage we've caused...? So many questions Martha.
ReplyDeleteI like the blog :-)
Current stance: moral and political issues will stand in the way of any significant development.
ReplyDeleteBut I may change my mind!