Engineering Earth 'is feasible'

[Heidi]

Source: BBC

Page last updated at 11:32 GMT, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 12:32 UK

A UK Royal Society study has concluded that many engineering proposals to reduce the impact of climate change are "technically possible".

Such approaches could be effective, the authors said in their report.

But they also stressed that the potential of geo-engineering should not divert governments away from their efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Such engineering projects could either remove carbon dioxide or reflect the Sun's rays away from the planet.

<snip>

"(Governments) should make increased efforts toward mitigating and adapting to climate change and in particular agreeing to global emissions reductions of at least 50% on 1990 levels by 2050 and more thereafter," the authors wrote.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8231387.stm

[izquierdista]

1. Of course it's possible

Man has 'engineered' it into its current condition. What remains now is to continue engineering it into a population and consumption level that we have become accustomed to.

[NashVegas]

9. Ouch. Ouch. Ouch

:(

[FailureToCommunicate]

2. One good scheme being proposed, I hope, is blasting all the rightwing-nuts into space to shield

some of the sun's rays to thus cool the earth. They will be doing something useful for OTHERS for a change. Solves two problems. Win win.

[Demeter]

4. Ooh! Winner of an Idea!

But a tad expensive. Surely these is some more cost-effective way of dealing with mad dogs and fascists?

[zazen]

7. hey, that reminds me of that scene from Logan's Run, when they turn 30

Saw it when I was seven. It terrified me for years.

[bushmeister0]

8. I wanted to be a Sandman, the ones who hunt the over 30's down.

At the age of ten when I saw it, 30 was ancient.

[whopis01]

14. Hopefully for no more than 23 years... n/t

[slackmaster]

3. History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of men

[whopis01]

15. go go Godzilla. n/t

[swilton]

5. Which is more difficult

Reengineering the disaster we have created or changing our gluttonous ways? :think:

Then we will engineer our economy so that clean water and clean air go to the highest bidders.


We have advanced technologically into the twenty-first century but our humanity remains in the dark ages. :crazy: :hurts: :hurts:

[Mr. Sparkle]

6. I kinda get the feeling that we would make things worse. We would solve one problem but create a few

more. Lets just fix things the old fashioned way and stop the pollution.

[JonQ]

10. I liked the one

about inducing algae blooms in the ocean to sequester carbon.

Seems like an idea worth looking in to.

[Terry in Austin]

11. Oh, yes! What could possibly go wrong with that?

:sarky icon goes here if necessary:

[Gregorian]

12. I can copy the Mona Lisa. But that doesn't mean it's worth a shit.

I don't want it.

We can clone sheep. But they aren't really sheep. I'd even go as far as to say that Republicans are people, but they aren't human. Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to offend.

Go ahead and keep working on the symptoms. There is a solution, but it can only be solved by working on the cause. It's a riddle, and I'll let you figure out what the cause is. Hint: it's exponential.

[jfkraus]

13. First rule of getting yourself out of a hole...

...STOP DIGGING!

[pscot]

16. So what's the hangup.

If it's doable, why aren't we doing it?

[Nihil]

20. Just because something is physically possible doesn't mean that it should be done.

The problem could also be all but solved by killing ~5 billion people tomorrow.
Doesn't mean that this is a good idea.

:shrug:

> The authors stated, however, that some of the technology was barely formed
> and there were "major uncertainties regarding its effectiveness, costs and
> environmental impacts".

> they also stressed that the potential of geo-engineering should not divert
> governments away from their efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

What's the betting that the bought-out politicians and their sponsors
don't broadcast the above two points anything like as much as they will
trumpet the "possibility" that justifies (in their mind only) carrying
on with business as usual?

[Juche]

17. It'll probably come to this

Even with investment, it may be 2050 before we stabilize and reverse our CO2 emission rates due to renewables. So I'm not surprised.

However, we have tons of other environmental problems to cope with too. CO2 also changes the pH of the oceans, which damages marine life. Engineering the environment (minus CO2 scrubbing) will not change that.

We also have overfishing, a lack of various metals, a lack of oil, a lack of agricultural products (food prices have shot up 300% for staples in the last few years), a lack of freshwater, etc. We still need to address all of those issues.

[damntexdem]

18. Not great. Very risky. But past inaction may make an attempt at such engineering necessary.

A shame, but a reality.

[Lagomorph]

19. It worked pretty good...

...before we started "improving" it.