After doing research on
geoengineering, I have found that there are various technologies being
developed that will be used in attempt to cool down the planet in response to
climate change. There are two types of geoengineering solar radiation management
(SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) that I will be discussing in my final persuasive
research paper. I will be looking to find out which geoengineering technology
is the best suitable in regards to safety, health awareness and the overall
effect of climate change as a whole. In my research I have found out that in
the subject of both SRM and CDR there are large scale methods such as, aerosol
geoengineering and ocean fertilization being developed which could be harmful
to ecosystems and people’s health. I have also found methods of geoengineering
from several different sources that are regarded as soft geoengineering. Soft
geoengineering is still relatively new, and are still begin developed. These
new technologies seem to have less harmful effects on the ecosystem and people
alike, but still need more work to become affordable to be applied on a large
scale to become effective as these other methods I have mentioned earlier. I
want to find out which method of geoengineering should be invested in?
I believe that soft geoengineering
is the methods we should be focusing on instead of aerosol geoengineering and
ocean fertilization. So I guess my question is: Is aerosol geoengineering and
ocean fertilization the safest route to take in attempt to cool down our planet
in regards to climate change even though there is still much more harm that
they could cause? Since aerosol geoengineering and ocean fertilization have
much research done showing signs that they may cause more harm than good, shouldn’t
we take time to invest into soft geoengineering? These questions are
problematic, because these issue of climate change is real. We need to use the
resources we have present to start an attempt to cool down the planet until we
can figure out a way to start mitigating emissions. Geoengineering is not a fix
to the issue of climate change, only a high tech band aid to slow down the
global effects of climate change while we work on a greater solution. Knowing
that geoengineering is a great tool we can use for climate change we must
choose the methods that are safest for ecosystems and people. My readers should
care about this because I am arguing that we all consider soft geoengineering
because geoengineering will affect everyone on this planet in one way or
another. I also believe the reader should care for the simple fact that this is
important information for everyone to be made aware of. News stations have not
started to talk about geoengineering yet, though I think it will become talked
of more once people have been informed.
I am convinced that the
idea of soft geoengineering is the route to be invested in if we are to use
geoengineering to cool our planet while figuring out new options to mitigate
emissions. Aerosol geoengineering is talked about as the cheapest method to use
in regards to cooling down the planet. This could be a major counter argument in
my paper. I can come back talking about the dangers involved with particle
injection in the stratosphere which are: aerosol geoengineering does not address
the problem of rising CO2 levels, deploying aerosol geoengineering could alter precipitations
patterns, once aerosol geoengineering is deployed there is a risk that it could
be abruptly discontinued, leading to rapid climate change, last aerosol
geoengineering could create the potential for geo-political conflict (Svoboda,
4). I am not arguing that soft geoengineering is the cheapest route to cool
down the planet. I am arguing that we need to invest time and resources into
soft geoengineering, because of these reasons: Can be applied locally, scalable
to larger areas, low or no anticipated negative impacts on ecosystems or
society, rapid reversibility if problems do arise, have multiple benefits
beyond impacts on climate, analogous to natural process, effects are large
enough soon enough to be worthwhile, and cost-effective with mature
technologies deployed at moderate scale. (Olson, 2). I will also talk about the
negative effects that aerosol geoengineering and ocean fertilization have to
counter the counter argument made against my persuasion. Geoengineering is still a very new concept and
many scientists and big money investors such as Bill Gates are racing to figure
out the most suitable method to help cool down the planet (Goodell, 113). It is
dire for these scientists and investors not to rush into the cheapest option
like aerosol geoengineering and ocean fertilization, because I don’t believe that
we can truly grasp the blow back it may cause in the long run. Not only will be
have the looming problem of climate change but whole new problems may arise
from geoengineering that these scientist are not prepared for. Society and
earth as a whole are at stake when dealing with geoengineering so it is very
important that we take the necessary time and preparations while we start
testing these methods. I will be sure to be as through as possible when doing
my research for this paper to make sure that no side is left out. It is
important for us to take a long look at every possibility and resource that we
have and develop the safest one.
Work
Cited
Goodell,
Jeff 2010 “How To Cool The Planet, Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest
to
Fix the Earth’s Climate”. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. Print
Olson,
Robert L. “Soft Geoengineering: A Gentler Approach to Addressing Climate
Change.” Environment. Sep/Oct 2012, Vol. 54 Issue 5, p29-39. 6 Color
Photographs, 1
Chart,
1 Graph, 2 Maps
Svoboda,
Tony, “Is Aerosol Geoengineering Ethically Preferable to Other Climate Change
Strategies?” Ethics & the Environment. Fall 2012, Vol. 17 Issue 2,
p111-135. 25p
