Geoengineering is Banned...Maybe

Obviously, the ban permits small-scale testing of geoengineering concepts, and this is something that is necessary and agreed even by US authorities who are not signatories to the convention. The consequences of geoengineering gone wrong are potentially catastrophic, to quote Bart Gordon:

"Climate engineering carries with it a tremendous range of uncertainties and possibilities, ethical and political concerns, and the potential for catastrophic side effects," A link to Gordon's full report is found in the story here.

The UN ban seeks to prevent individual nations or agencies from unilaterally taking actions which would have global (and potentially catastrophic) consequences. That makes good sense to me.

Some of the proposed geoengineering projects that come up early in a search raise a lot of questions. Injecting sulphates into the stratospheric ozone layer? to produce "global dimming" as volcanic emissions have done in the past (remember Pinatubo in 1991? Cold and hungry, I shudder at the thought). Sure enough, recent research published in Science shows that this approach poses a distinct risk of worsening the stratospheric ozone depletion problem, as well... Oh great. Who decides what the priorities are, then? Chuck the ozone layer, make it nice and chilly and dark but scorchy with UV rays....as recommended by experts.

Thankyou, I'll side in favor of the geoengineering ban....

I was thinking about the adding of iron to ocean water type of geo engineering. People advocate that to boost the photosynthetic plankton levels.

But doesn't it have the huge potential danger of boosting the H2S producing bacteria instead? These little guys may be responsible for the Permian extinction event and they are implicated in several other extinction events too.

And with regard to global dimming to slow down global warming, we only need to look to our nearest neighbour planet. dim and hot. Venus

Geo-engineering is an essential tool that we must know all we can about. That is not an endorsement to use the technology. If the act of doing nothing stifles essential knowledge we may need in the future, playing catch-up may not be an option. We do not know where global warming will take us or indeed if it is even a serious problem today or in the foreseeable future. Planting trees is a form of geo-engineering that we should be able to practice at will. However, it may stop certain grazing animals by stealing their ecumene. Do we weigh the biodiversity to favor the grazers or the forest animals.

Putting sulfur in contrails may be less acceptable but we should know if it will work at least on a small scale. I suspect we could work with models but we do not have a good track record on climate change whether induced or not.

Like everything in life we need to move slowly and with certainty. The risk to biodiversity is great even without such engineering. The question of whether geo-engineering will be a savior or a waste is not readily answered without research. One thing I do know is that the present stress on biodiversity is related to bio-monism of humans.