Electromagnetic Weapons 2

Anoniem heeft een nieuwe reactie op je bericht "Electromagnetic Weapons" achtergelaten: 

Geo-enginering

CarbonBrief 11/2/15

'While the reports make clear that geoengineering is not a substitute for global action to reduce carbon emissions, it recognises that some action may be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The reports have prompted a flurry of reaction, particularly in the US.

'Evil twin'

Much of the media concentrates on the two different methods of geoengineering, which the study covered in separate reports. National Geographic says there is a "good and a bad way to geoengineer the planet".

So, which is good and which is bad? Ars Technica makes it clear: "If carbon removal is expensive, but relatively low-risk, albedo modification is its evil twin: cheap, but with tremendous risks."

Scientific American points out that blocking the Sun's rays doesn't help with other impacts of rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, such as "turning ocean waters more acidic or nights that get warmer and warmer under a thickening blanket of greenhouse gases".

The Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, based at American University in Washington DC, is concerned the reports are suggesting technologies to remove carbon dioxide could also tackle the root causes of climate change: "Climate change is not solely a carbon dioxide problem. It is, rather, a fossil fuel combustion problem, meaning it is an energy system problem. The idea that carbon dioxide removal addresses the causes of climate change muddies the wider message that climate engineering is no real substitute for mitigation."

In 2013 trok de Amerikaanse Inlichtingendienst de CIA 630.000 dollar uit voor een studie naar Geo-enginereing. aldus Mother Jones/ De morgen