The Ghost of RubangB said:
Which one's geoengineering? Is that the one with the hot gas or radiation that comes out of the ground? I support all renewable energies. There's at least 30 we know about by now. I say we fund the hell out of all of them and see which are the most efficient. |
Neither.
Geoengineering isn't a renewable energy. Geoengineering is exactly what it sounds like, the engineering of earth.
Say either this climate change is natural, or one in the future is natural. Renewable energy isn't going to do jack.
However, whether or not it's man made or natural.... BOTH kinds can be countered with say... phytoplanktin being put in the oceans to lock up carbon. Espeically genetical altered phytoplanktin that absorbs more carbon then usual.
Or different things seeding the clouds that will capture carbon dioxide out of the air, sulfur aersols, things that make it rain, solar radiation management....
these are "hard" controls that would work far better then renewable energies as far as global warming is concenred. Renewable energies should be funded for different more practical reasons.
However due to the renewable energy lobbies and carbon tax lobbies Geoengineering gets branded as "inconvient" to look into because it may take away from their positions.
Even though in reality it may be the only thing that could save us.
Heck, even if it is man made.... if we've already hit the tipping point, OR will hit it soon.(which a lot of these people think is the case) It's the only thing that can save us anyway... so it's ridiculious that they openly campaign against funding said research.
