Presumably solar panel arrays suspended above grass improve the local micro-climate for grazing animals below, and when suspended over canals they may also redu

Presumably solar panel arrays suspended above grass improve the local micro-climate for grazing animals below, and when suspended over canals they may also reduce evaporation. The negative harms should be studied, but also balanced rationally. We need to have a wider / deeper discussion about the relative harms vs benefits of solar "geo-engineeering" - putting particulates or salt water droplets into the air to reflect sunlight, to reduce warming. This is urgent - the CO2 is already there, and we will likely have a long plateau of current highest emissions for another decade .. its the area under that curve that matters - total CO2 - and this will likely bake in +2C in coming years. We have some data from vulcanic eruptions and recent reduction of particulates in shipping fuel, so we know in principle it works. We've been releasing sulphites inadvertently as pollution for a long time .. it has not been world ending. We need to do experiments and get better estimates on the benefit and harms, and feed that back into our climate models, and climate and weather predictions if we do larger geoengineering. If we stopped all carbon burning tomorrow, we still need a way to bring the heat down - the ice and sea have buffered a great deal of the damage, but the ice will keep melting for a long time from current GHGs, perhaps irreversibly on human time scales. Id argue that harm is orders of magnitude greater than the negative effects of releasing sun-reflecting/shielding particulates. To act or not, which does more harm ? That is a question science can give the best answers to. We need to get over the 'controversy', do the science we can in the short time we have and then act.