EU calls for global talks on climate geoengineering risks

Most of the measures being considered have strong scientific basis of efficacy (even if limited) but the scale of the repercusions if something failed to be considered makes regulation definetely necessary as the article clearly explains. The worst thing is not that the projects fail to be effective and lots of resources are wasted, the worst would be to cause ecological damage on a global basis, so even if the risk is minuscule it has to be considered a real posibility.

This is why projects that come with ways to reverse the human intervention are considered much more likely to be put in practice, even if other options could be as effective while costing much less.

Based on the 'precautionary principle' upon which sustainable development rests, geo-engineering should not even be considered.

Look at our track record on what could be said to be our first geo-engineering project - the mass burning of fossil fuels since the 1800's.

Besides, any geo-engineering project to combat climate change will be used as an excuse for business as usual by those alined with the FF industry.

Blocking the sun in a more local and less radical way is hugely beneficial. Just as there is a difference between the temperature in the winter and the cold you feel (the wind chill factor), there is a similar difference in the summer. Official UK summer temperatures barely hit 30 degrees but my thermometer regularly went over forty, dropping quickly in cloudy weather. This 'heat burn' affects animals, crops and people. It also starts wildfires courtesy of discarded waste. We may need to start examining shading areas, using material that can block or permit light under simple controls. But of course, we would have to engineer that, and engineering requires energy and raw materials, which all now cost a lot more than they did a few years ago, components may be difficult to source, and we may no longer have the labour to do it. Our governments have really messed up, running with nationalism, border blocks and higher costs at a time when we all needed to be working together.

I don't see why you would ban carbon syncing research. We need this technology urgently for crying out loud. The SRM, on the other hand, seems like it could be risky. Better only allow that if 2/3 of the world agrees at the UN or something.

Geoengineering... what could possibly go wrong?