CAJ - Opinions against Geoengineering 2

Here I present you further arguments of scientist who advocate against Geoengineering

“To err is human” is a saying scientists who oppose Geoengineering use to make an argument. Humans could make mistakes such as in the manufacturing or the design of Geoengineering techniques and this could have unknown consequences. They use Chernobyl as an example of the effect if, theoretically, something went wrong.

According to a book called “A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization”, there is a risk of rapid warming if the deployment of Geoengineering stopped promptly. It would be much worse than gradual warming and would have a bad effect on our ecosystems considering the fact that global temperatures would return to levels of 250 years ago with Geoengineering.

One of the most shared argument against Geoengineering is the following:  If scientist really found a way to fix global warming, people would be more reluctant to change their ways of living. They would continue to produce carbon emissions since it would no longer impact their lives negatively. Also, large corporations which exploit the Earth’s resources could gain advantage of Geoengineering and go on with their exploitation, maybe even worse than before.
Shouldn’t we care about our planet anyway? What is the excuse for what we are doing?

What is the optimal global temperature? This issue could come up if Geoengineering was to be implemented. We know by now that the northern world countries like Russia or Scandinavia could gain an advantage of warmer temperature as it could increase the growing season. India, on the other hand, could need lower temperatures. Should the degree remain like it is now? Is there a possibility of future wars around this issue? These are all questions scientist would rather not find an answer to.

They are also concerned that Geoengineering techniques may not achieve effective cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous levels of global warming.

This is the answer of James Fleming, the author of “Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control”, when he was asked if Geoengineering could save climate change:

“In short, I think it may be infinitely more dangerous than climate change, largely due to the suspicion and social disruption it would trigger by changing humanity's relationship to nature.”
- Interesting thought.

All in all, many scientist consider the implementation of Geoengineering to be a slippery slope as it is hard to predict what it could cause.