sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
Yeah, but a lot of people don't like it because of ethical concerns and the like. First there's the "not natural" arguement that you basically hear from everone against all technology when it first comes out... and additionally more troubling would be that the countries that develop the technology will have the ability to alter climate at will and one global tempeture isn't "best" for all countries. I mean heck, Russia and Canada for example would actually be better served if there was global warming.
Back when Ahmadinejad claimed that europe was "Stealing it's rain" I think that shortly after one US state threatened to sue Texas for it's advanced cloud seeding expierments. So it's probably where he got the idea from.
One of the best reasons to focus most on Geoengineering though is that it's totally possible, man made or not, that we've already hit a "tipping point".
It seems like the "tipping point" issue keeps getting pushed back as we miss each date, so whether we really aren't there yet, or are but it's politically being pushed back... who can say.
Eventually though if it gets hot enough the earth goes into an unstoppable naturally unbalanced heating system, where the heat melts ice, which puts more emisions in the air... which raises heat, which puts more emissions in the air.
|
By 'global temperature', do you mean that there would be the same temperature worldwide if this thing were used? 'Cause I somehow don't think that would be good for different ecosystems.
|
No, I mean global tempeture as in how it's used now.
For example if global warming increased, Russia and Canada would get much more fertile and much larger amounts of farmland even though it'd get warmer and crapier for some people below them.
During the last global warming period for example, the UK and northern europe flourish while wines which used to come out of southern europe declined heavily.
To put it in simplistic terms since i'm about to leave, it'd be just like argueing over thermostat in a house.
|
Yes, now I understand. Seems like this will be a pretty controversial issue, as there will clearly be nations totally against it. It's quite worrying, as I assume total consensus would have to be reached before using this, and some nations might rather go to war...
|
I don't think it'd be that big of a deal. In general climate poltics wise, the US, EU, India and China are all right around the same "prefered" temperture... and Canada generally seems like one of the bigger "Go green" countries even though they have everything to benefit from not going green, both long and short term.
It'd be Russia alone on that issue and i don't think they'd be willing to risk war vs the rest of the developed world on the issue.
As with most international agreements, they'll probably only need the approval of the "major powers."
There would probably be some debate here in there for a degree or two difference, but it should work out.
