2 ms·
...and a willingness to accept any unintended or unforeseen consequences. The burden of proof that "iron fertilization" (or any other geo-engineering technique
by rosser 10y ago
...and a willingness to accept any unintended or unforeseen consequences.
The burden of proof that "iron fertilization" (or any other geo-engineering technique) will even result in a net reduction in anthropogenic climate change — leaving entirely aside, you know, not actually being harmful — is on the people who want to do it. As much as CO₂, &c, is a problem that begs for something to be done, I don't think that's been adequately demonstrated yet.
- ageofwant 10y agoWhat does that mean ? What would be "adequately demonstrated" for rosser would be wildly risky for fooman, and overly risk averse for ageofwant. ageofwant is satisfied that given the limited trials so far and the Russ George "experiment", which by all indications were wildly successful, large scale ocean seeding trials is called for. Given the risks associated with doing nothing, and the relative low cost of a large trial, it would be silly, nay morally indefensible not to.
- rosser 10y agoI really want you to be right on this. Way more than I want me to be right. But the consequences of being wrong on some of the things being suggested to combat climate change could be tremendous, and in some cases even worse than the problem they're being used to solve. I don't know where the balance that needs to be struck lies, but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere on the far side of: "Welp, sounds good to me!" — some dude on the internets