Geo-engineering is not the solution

02008-09-03 | Environment, Technology, World | 3 comments

Geoengineering is not the solution to global warming | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Tinkering with our entire planetary system is not a silver bullet. It’s an expression of political despair, writes Greenpeace’s Doug Parr

I don’t believe in silver bullets. They don’t work. Instead we have to get to work and make changes.

Without practicing one cannot be a good musician, without sitting not a zen-buddhist, changing one’s diet and exercising will always show more results than using diet-pills, enlightenment is a long haul, not a quick fix… ah, but how our brain WANTS to find the quick fix, the silver bullet. So, now some want to mess with a huge complex system (this planet) – in order to avoid making changes.

If you ask me, making fuel from food is a bad idea (((especially considering the size of the world’s population))), and so are nuclear power plants (((let a trillion small power-generators bloom… solar, wind, geo-thermal and stuff like this))) and geo-engineering. We are the ones who need changing, not the planet.

3 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    Love the “this” gee – close family connections with blacktop – never would have dreamed of this idea of turning Blacktop to Greentop! Cool – Can’t wait to share this information to others! Thanks again!

    Reply
  2. dave

    I watched a program on geo-engineering on the Science Channel last night. Two solutions to global warming presented were to artificially increase cloud coverage by putting moisture into the atmosphere and another was to send a trillion deflectors into space. Both of these would deflect the suns rays away from the earth thereby cutting down global warming. These just don’t make any sense at all. One that did make some sense, but would not make an immediate impact, was reforestation via dropping containers with seedlings in them in areas that have been clear cut.

    Reply
  3. Rob

    Global warming isn’t one big problem, it’s a collective symptom of a large collection of smaller problems. One big solution may address one of the problems, but it is very unlikely to address all of them, and may cause new problems in the process.

    Imagine: Bush decided that he suddenly wants to address greenhouse gases. His plan is to outlaw all private vehicles (no more gas guzzlers!) and give every American family a US-made version of the Smart Car. More autoworker jobs! Less auto emissions! But will the Smart Car work for everybody? What about the families of more than two people? Hmmm – maybe this one solution addresses the emissions problem and the auto workers problem, but not the transportation problems of millions of families. Just when Bush expected the air th start clearing up he found that people were having to make multiple trips to solve the same transportation needs in their tiny cars, so emissions were going up rather than down! Then the first of the several recalls happened, and the entire nation came to a standstill. We all finally started biking to work and the emissions finally started dropping. We got healthier in the process too, a bit of a win-win, but we had to actually get off our asses, and that turned out to be the hardest part of all.

    Environmental problems are too complex to expect one solution to solve it all, but people with something to sell will always do their best to make one solution an easy pill to swallow. …a solution that presents us with a way to comfortably continue doing what we’re doing now while the earth changes to suit our abuse of it. Such a solution can never work on a long term basis though, and if we break the earth we’re done. We have nowhere else to call home.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Archives

Images