Is it a good idea to tinker around with earth to control global warming? – Today’s CLIDEMY Poll
The world, if experts are to be believed, will most likely overshoot the 1.5 degrees C by 2100 (for those wondering what this number is all about, it refers to the increase in global average temperature above what existed before the industrial revolution – circa 1850).
That is, even if we do a whole lot of things around renewable energy, energy & resource efficiency and CO2 capture, we could still be in the doldrums. Life could be quite miserable on earth if we overshoot 1.5 and even touch 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
What can be done?
𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐠𝐞𝐨𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 – this refers to going beyond all these “sustainable” pathways, going a bit extreme, and trying out stuff like
=> blocking the amount of sunlight falling on earth by spraying aerosols,
=> putting up orbital mirrors to reflect back sunlight,
=> increasing the albedo of surfaces on many different regions on earth,
=> large-scale direct air capture & storing billions of tons of CO2 in all sorts of places,
=> massively fertilizing oceans to capture a lot more CO2, etc.
Geoengineering, considered in a charitable way, is gently prodding the earth. Some might also considering it as the equivalent of “hammering” at the earth.
Either way, it doesn’t sound nice, no, it doesn’t. No one really knows the consequences of such prodding or hammering.
But the alternative – super global warming – doesn’t sound great either.
That brings us to today’s CLIDEMY poll: 𝐆𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐠𝐞𝐨𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠?
See my LinkedIn post on this topic
