Geo-engineering is sometimes played as humanity’s have-your-cake-and-eat-it option: humans have already unthinkingly engineered climate change over the last 200 years by profligate combustion of coal, oil and gas that releases ever-growing concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Geo-engineering is a highly risky strategy which could simultaneously benefit one region to the detriment of another. link Under Swiss company Climeworks’s current technology, the cost to capture one metric ton of carbon dioxide is between $600 and $800, but it should come down as the startup installs more of these units. Another startup, Carbon Engineering in Canada, claims that its DAC technology has already brought the cost down to about $250 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. However currently emit nearly 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. link
_______________________________________________________
Below:
- Evidence of geoengineering
- Dangers of geoengineering
Evidence of geoengineering
June 2015: US Air Force admits they can control the weather. While HAARP and weather control has been called a conspiracy theory by the mainstream media and government officials, during a Senate hearing David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering, dropped a bombshell in answer to a question asked by Lisa Murkowski in relation to the dismantling of the $300 million High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program in Gakona this summer. link
March 2015: The UN admits chemtrails are real. Rosalind Peterson, President of Agriculture Defence Coalition, addresses the UN on chemtrails, geoengineering and weather modification, acknowledging that private companies and governments, including the USA, are doing this without any oversight. link
Dangers of geoengineering
August 2018: Geoengineering to cool the planet would result in crop damage. According to a new analysis by University of California, Berkeley, researchers analyzing the past effects of Earth-cooling volcanic eruptions, suggested that any improvements in yield from cooler temperatures would be negated by lower productivity due to reduced sunlight. The problem in figuring out the consequences of solar geoengineering is that we can’t do a planetary-scale experiment without actually deploying the technology. The breakthrough here was realizing that we could learn something by studying the effects of giant volcanic eruptions that geoengineering tries to copy. link
February 2018: ‘Silver bullet’ to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out. Scientists say climate targets cannot be met using the technologies, which either risk huge damage to the environment or are very costly. To reach the targets in the Paris agreement require huge deployment of so-called negative emissions technologies (NETs) in the second half of the century. Ways of sucking CO2 from the air will not work on the vast scales needed to beat climate change, Europe’s science academies have warned. The technologies that some hope could be a “silver bullet” in halting global warming either risk huge damage to the environment themselves or are likely to be very costly. link
November 2017: Could a rogue nation alter clouds to combat warming? Plans for two experiments to potentially slow global warming by deploying tiny particles into the atmosphere have sparked an international debate over whether such tests should be allowed without some form of government scrutiny. The experiments are being planned by scientists who worry that the U.S. government, and others, is not equipped to move fast enough to mitigate greenhouse gases before the world reaches dangerous “tipping points.” The problem with messing with clouds is that they could disrupt atmospheric circulation patterns that “would cut the rainfall,” particularly in the tropics. link (See also the role of clouds – link)
January 2014: New research says engineering climate could have serious side-effects. The controversial idea of geoengineering, deliberately changing the Earth’s climate, is being seriously discussed as a last-ditch way of avoiding dangerous global warming if efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions fail. But new work shows that a leading contender – pumping sulphate particles into the stratosphere to block sunlight – could have side-effects just as serious as the effects of warming itself. link
November 2014: Geo-engineering could harm billions. Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say. This is the so far unproven science of intervening in the climate to bring down temperatures. These projects work by, for example, shading the Earth from the Sun or soaking up CO2. Long regarded as the most bizarre of all solutions for global warming, ideas for geo-engineering have come in for more scrutiny in recent years as international efforts to limit carbon emissions have failed. Dr. Matt Watson of Bristol University said, “Personally I find this stuff terrifying but we have to compare it to doing nothing, to business-as-usual leading us to a world with a 4C rise.” link
August 2010: All-out geo-engineering would not stop sea level rise. Extensive geo-engineering seems impractical given its economic and environmental cost. But interfering with the planet’s carbon cycles, something we’re already doing by adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere, appears to be the better bet, even if only by curbing current CO2 emissions. Otherwise, we’re leaving our descendants one heck of a mess or, as the authors put it, “substituting geo-engineering for greenhouse gas emission abatement or removal constitutes a conscious risk transfer to future generations.” link
August 28 2018: Sucking carbon from the air. A small Swiss company won $31 million in new investment to suck carbon dioxide from thin air as part of a fledgling, costly technology that may gain wider acceptance from governments in 2018 as a way to slow climate change. The company says it has a long-term “vision” of capturing 1% of man-made CO2 emissions by 2025. But that is a far off. Its capacity is just 1,000 tonnes of CO2 a year while global emissions totaled 32.5 billion tonnes in 2017, according to the International Energy Agency.