The world is hurtling towards an existential crisis, and yet some are calling for a ban on geoengineering research. This would be a catastrophic mistake that could spell doom for our planet.
Geoengineering, or technological climate interventions, refers to efforts to intentionally alter the Earth's climate. One such approach involves using reflective particles to reflect away sunlight, which has been shown to potentially cool the planet. However, some have raised alarm bells about this idea, despite centuries of human activity altering the planet through greenhouse gas emissions.
The reality is that our planet has already undergone significant changes due to human activities. The Earth's climate system appears more sensitive to greenhouse gases than once thought, and we are not reducing those gases nearly fast enough. Catastrophic impacts and dangerous feedback loops are becoming increasingly likely.
It would be a disservice to the public to suggest that business as usual can hold, when the math is already daunting. We need research on other tools, including geoengineering interventions, sooner rather than later. The idea of banning such research altogether is akin to refusing to consider potentially life-saving options.
Instead, we need a more holistic approach that integrates mitigation, adaptation, and risk reduction. This involves expanding investments in emergency preparedness, resilience, and climate-resilient infrastructure. We also need to explore potential interventions that might reduce peak warming or slow dangerous feedbacks, with a focus on developing credible options.
Banning research will not address the pressing issue of climate change. In fact, it could lead to a future where decisions are made in crisis, without preparation, and under pressure. The only question is when and by whom we will take action.
As Baroness Bryony Worthington and Craig Segall so eloquently argue, some have labeled discussing climate interventions as creating a "moral hazard". However, refusing to consider such options is not moral clarity; it's moral failure. Climate justice demands that we protect people from suffering by developing a comprehensive plan that addresses the root causes of climate change.
The world needs more leaders, funders, and governments willing to engage in this critical work. We need to identify which approaches might actually help and prepare before an escalating crisis forces our hand. Anything less would be irresponsible.
Geoengineering, or technological climate interventions, refers to efforts to intentionally alter the Earth's climate. One such approach involves using reflective particles to reflect away sunlight, which has been shown to potentially cool the planet. However, some have raised alarm bells about this idea, despite centuries of human activity altering the planet through greenhouse gas emissions.
The reality is that our planet has already undergone significant changes due to human activities. The Earth's climate system appears more sensitive to greenhouse gases than once thought, and we are not reducing those gases nearly fast enough. Catastrophic impacts and dangerous feedback loops are becoming increasingly likely.
It would be a disservice to the public to suggest that business as usual can hold, when the math is already daunting. We need research on other tools, including geoengineering interventions, sooner rather than later. The idea of banning such research altogether is akin to refusing to consider potentially life-saving options.
Instead, we need a more holistic approach that integrates mitigation, adaptation, and risk reduction. This involves expanding investments in emergency preparedness, resilience, and climate-resilient infrastructure. We also need to explore potential interventions that might reduce peak warming or slow dangerous feedbacks, with a focus on developing credible options.
Banning research will not address the pressing issue of climate change. In fact, it could lead to a future where decisions are made in crisis, without preparation, and under pressure. The only question is when and by whom we will take action.
As Baroness Bryony Worthington and Craig Segall so eloquently argue, some have labeled discussing climate interventions as creating a "moral hazard". However, refusing to consider such options is not moral clarity; it's moral failure. Climate justice demands that we protect people from suffering by developing a comprehensive plan that addresses the root causes of climate change.
The world needs more leaders, funders, and governments willing to engage in this critical work. We need to identify which approaches might actually help and prepare before an escalating crisis forces our hand. Anything less would be irresponsible.
, a ban on geoengineering research is just gonna put the brakes on science and innovation! What's next? Ban medical breakthroughs too? It's not about being reckless with tech, it's about exploring solutions for the mess we've made. We're already 100+ years into the climate crisis, when are we supposed to get our act together? 
this is just crazy, can't believe some ppl are saying no to geoengineering research 
we gotta think ahead here and consider all options if we wanna save the planet 
instead of just sticking our heads in the sand and hoping for the best 
what's the point of having scientists working on this stuff if we're just gonna shut them down? 
gotta give it to these ppl who are speaking up about climate change, they're getting a bad rep though 
like, discussing geoengineering isn't gonna create a moral hazard, that's just semantics 
the thing is, we need a plan B (or C, or D...) for when the world gets too hot to handle 
and I'm not saying it's all sunshine and rainbows, but at least let's try 
I think it's wild that some folks are pushing for a ban on geoengineering research 
anyway i guess its better to have options than not having any at all 
.
It's not like we've got nothing to lose at this point. We need to think outside the box if we want to save ourselves from climate disaster. And let's be real, banning research on geoengineering is just a cop-out 