IEET Readers Cool Toward Geoengineering

Only a third of IEET readers who responded to our recently concluded poll agree that geoengineering is a good idea and should be started as soon as possible. Almost half (47%) of respondents are “on the fence” and believe that more study is needed before they can say for sure, while a small but significant percentage definitely oppose it.

...

Complete entry

Posted by Dan Whaley  on  06/25  at  04:21 PM

You call this "Cool" towards geoengineering? I'd say that 80% of your readers either support immediate deployment (which makes little sense) or further study (i.e. lets find out more). I'd say that's a pretty overwhelmingly supportive point of view. Dan Whaley CEO, Climos

Posted by Brad Arnold  on  06/25  at  07:21 PM

You've got to be kidding me. I advocate geoengineering constantly, and I voted that it need more study (they want to add SO2 to the atmosphere, when an engineered aerosol would be ten times more effective per "The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering").

Posted by Ed  on  07/07  at  12:04 PM

I heard an interview with Jamais Cascio yesterday on Wisconsin Public Radio re: adding SO2 to the atmosphere to attempt to cool the planet. I feel that such a radical step (even given the "edge" we are on with system collapse) needs more consideration. He gave a clear view of what's at stake if the sluggish political processes are the only way to move toward lowering CO2. However, he did not speak to the specific issue of the continuing effect upon the planet's forests if the "geologic" solutions are attempted. Would the acid rain not destroy the forests planet-wide? Talk about eliminating a major CO2 sink! along with the decay products that would in addition add to the greenhouse gas load in the atmosphere. As well, acidifying the land and oceans would on-goingly alter the environments that help to maintain the Earth's balances of many sorts. Also, in response to a caller's comments, he was very dismissive toward those the he called "tree-huggers" as though their concern about all the other life forms on the planet are not as important as humans. Indeed, perhaps it is exactly the human specie which is so out-of-balance concerning coming to terms with our "darksides" that we may very well alter the planet just because we think we are the soley most important expression of life on the planet that we may ourselves be eliminatated due to our affect (do not take this as some kind of fundamentalist theological comment). I hope this will not be the case as humans are an amazing life-expression. In any event, I'd like to know the likely effect upon the viability of the Earth's forests under a continuing acid load. Please pass-on my question/comments to Jamais Cascio.

Posted by Jamais Cascio  on  07/08  at  10:49 AM

Hi Ed -- glad you listened to the WPR conversation. According to the research conducted by Alan Robock at Rutgers (and he's no fan of geoengineering), the amount of deposition of sulfates into terrestrial ecosystems, even under robust sulfate injection scenarios, isn't enough to cause ecosystem damage. See http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/aciddeposition7.pdf As for the "treehuggers" comment, I apologize if I caused offense. I was trying to emphasize that environmentalism isn't antagonistic to human civilization, but is instead an important manifestation of our best interests.

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: