Having written on the topic of Geo-Engineering for the past
few months, I feel that I have developed my understanding of many of the issues
surrounding this topic. I started this blog being heavily sceptical of all
forms of geo-engineering; since then I have warmed to certain forms.
Personally, I think that solar geo-engineering methods are
far too risky; they have many more downsides than upsides. Forms of
geo-engineering that involve carbon dioxide removal is where my greatest
support lies. These methods aim to reduce the cause of anthropogenic climate
change and despite working slowly, have fewer risks and can operate alongside
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Determining whether to use geo-engineering depends on a form
of cost-benefit analysis bringing together a variety of factors. Use of geo-engineering involves questions over finances, environmental impacts,
political and military motives, feasibility, time scale and unexpected
consequences. Only by assessing the multitude of factors can it be possible to
determine if any of the geo-engineering techniques are suitable.
I am more positive about geo-engineering than when I started
this blog but further research into the impacts of different methods is
desperately needed as there is currently insufficient knowledge to make a clear
and informed decision.
