A plan to save the earth: we need to look at a whole new approach

We witnessed this phenomenon before the eruption of Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines in 1991. It was by far the largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century. century that affected a densely populated area. It caused hot ash eruptions and gas avalanches, killing hundreds of people, destroying thousands of homes and forcing hundreds of thousands to flee their homes. In addition to the devastation, the volcano also affected the climate. Its eruption released so much sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere that temporarily reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface.

As a result, temperatures around the world fell by more than half a degree Celsius over the next year and a half.

Although the eruption of the Tonga volcano in January is unlikely to be strong enough to produce a significant cooling effect, some scientists concerned about global warming are investigating the possibility of volcanic effects on the climate, that is, at very low cost. Lowering the world’s temperature through so-called “geo-engineering”. This can be accomplished through a mechanism called stratospheric aerosol injection, in which small particles, such as sulfur dioxide, are sprayed into the upper atmosphere to create a thin, reflective barrier against incoming sunlight. Scientists have come up with a number of suggestions for how to deliver sulfur dioxide to the desired location – from high-performance artillery shells to long tubes suspended by high-altitude balloons to aircraft particles scattered.

The idea of ​​pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere is a concern for many.

Some fear that a darkening of the sky in one hemisphere will have a massive and unpredictable effect on the climate in the tropics, possibly causing more droughts in the Sahel. Others fear that this may interfere with photosynthesis. However, scientists are also exploring other geoengineering options. Obviously, we don’t know much yet about this technology and how it will work across the planet. However, there are reasons why we should start researching geoengineering techniques.

The most important aspect in this regard is that it is the only known approach that allows a significant reduction in global temperature at low cost.

Copenhagen Consensus about Research shows that only $9 billion (which could be spent building 1,900 seawater sprinkler machines—spraying water droplets to rise. This is a huge opportunity, given that $60 trillion in damage could occur in this century if we don’t limit global warming. .

In addition, geoengineering will allow the global average temperature to change very rapidly. It would take decades and half a century to implement any conventional policy to reduce fossil fuels to have any noticeable impact on the climate. In contrast, like the Pinatubo volcano, geoengineering can literally bring temperatures down in weeks. Geoengineering is the only way to reduce global warming quickly.

It is clear what are the potential risks of this method, but if we are facing a real catastrophe, we would definitely like this opportunity to be available.

Of course, simply preventing warming will not solve all the problems associated with climate change. But remember, there is no realistic climate policy that promises to solve all (or even most) of the problems of climate change. If geoengineering could prevent much of the damage expected from climate change with little or no side effects, it would be an astonishingly beneficial intervention for humanity. We are currently considering a carbon-reduction policy that will cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, but it won’t help much. If we instead spent $9 billion on tackling a large portion of climate change, there would be a huge amount of money left to do good in other ways.

Some researchers insist that the issue of geoengineering should not even be considered because it may carry unacceptable risks. But we cannot know in advance, If not checked Look at the problem carefully. Because geoengineering costs so little, there is a huge risk that someone – a country, a lone billionaire, or even a determined NGO – will still try. We want everyone to get a full picture of the problem before it happens.

For this reason, researchers working on the Copenhagen Consensus who study the benefits of geoengineering have suggested that research in geoengineering should start with a few tens of millions of dollars and then increase to a few billion over decades. This would be a reasonable level of investment to demonstrate that geoengineering can really work. In addition, we will do as little damage as possible and everyone will be properly informed about the pros and cons of geoengineering.

We shouldn’t start geoengineering now, because the technology isn’t ready yet and we don’t know much about it yet. However, we simply cannot not do research in geoengineering. This could be the best plan to save the earth.