I find this a very interesting topic. Slowing and maybe even reversing global warming is incredibly slow because of how indirect the processes are: we burn carbon -> CO2 in atmosphere goes up -> atmosphere retains more heat -> glaciers melt; even if we stop burning carbon completely (which we won't), it's going to take a long time for carbon levels to return to normal, and during that time, the atmosphere will continue to retain more heat, temperatures will continue to go up, and glaciers will continue to melt even faster.
Actually reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth will have a much faster impact. The downside is that to have any impact at all, you need to do this on an unbelievably massive scale, which is not only expensive, but we have no idea what kind of side effects it may have.
I think it's an interesting area of research, but it shouldn't prevent us from dramatically reducing our CO2 output.
1 comment
[ 353 ms ] story [ 258 ms ] threadActually reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth will have a much faster impact. The downside is that to have any impact at all, you need to do this on an unbelievably massive scale, which is not only expensive, but we have no idea what kind of side effects it may have.
I think it's an interesting area of research, but it shouldn't prevent us from dramatically reducing our CO2 output.