Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

Posted by samzenpus on from the we-can-make-it-better dept.

Jason Koebler writes The Royal Society of London, the world's oldest scientific publisher, has unveiled a proposal to create the first serious framework for future geoengineering experiments. It's a sign that what are still considered drastic and risky measures to combat climate change are drifting further into the purview of mainstream science. The scientific body has issued a call to create "an open and transparent review process that ensures such experiments have the necessary social license to operate."

7 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. You get nothing. Good day, sir! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I were a schill for big business, I'd be all, "Yeah yeah! Do it! Let's compensate by geoengineering!"

    DO NOT DO THIS. If it works and you overshoot, you'll induce another ice age, which can happen in as few as a couple of years. Unlike moving in from the oceans over 100-300 years (a nuisance, and less damaging to human life than slowing technological advancement by massive intervention in the economy) an ice age will indeed, and actually, and rapidly kill billions of people.

    Lik Willy Wonka, I will sigh and burble flatedly, "No. Stop. Don't do it." but the children won't listen.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  2. Transparent? by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When they say "open and transparent" what they mean is that anyone who's even vaguely sceptical will be hounded out at the first opportunity.

    1. Re:Transparent? by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You didn't have any logic or facts either, just your opinion. He chose to highlight the fact that your opinion is not based on the scientific findings of the decades of research on climate change by simply pointing to your name, which is incredibly apt. Don't confuse brevity with laziness :)

  3. Re:I have a better idea by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You could propose that as a geoengineering experiment.

    But the short term costs are horrendous. Billions dead. Unlikely to be a good tradeoff.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Re:You get nothing. Good day, sir! by Berkyjay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A scientist who doesn't consider all paths to solving a problem is not a very good scientist. Let me emphasise.....CONSIDER all paths. To ignore geoengineering as a possible solution to what is happening NOW would be foolish and irresponsible.

  5. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I like planting trees but I'm under no illusion that it will solve the problem. We're burning fossil fuels in a few centuries that took 10's to 100's of thousands to millions of years to lay down. I would expect it to take a similar amount of time to reverse the CO2 levels.

  6. Re:I am skeptical by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess we won't know if we don't do the research, but it concerns me that it could be seen as "Don't worry, we'll just put everything back, so go ahead and dig up that last ounce of fossil fuel." Even if the geoengineering approach can do more good than harm, it doesn't let us off the hook to produce less carbon, which will mitigate the damage. And we're having a hard enough time getting anything done on that score without adding a new phase to climate change denialism: "We can fix it."

    While the moral hazard of geoengineering is rather obvious as a problem, so is the assumption that humanity only has one purpose, to keep the climate the same as it was in 1850.