From the one article on geoengineering that we read for class, I have come to the conclusion that the whole notion is silly. The idea of simply capturing existing carbon as a method for lowering the Earth’s temperature and halting climate change is backwards. In order to really curb climate change, measures must be taken to stopper the source of carbon entering the atmosphere, not just clean up what already exists. The fact remains that if we continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere at the currently increasing rate, Earth will get progressively sicker. And as Earth gets sicker, every living organism and ecosystem will be affected. This much is plain. Geoengineering treats the symptom not the disease. We must first cut off the source of the problem before we can even begin to think about cleaning up the mess we’ve made.

Furthermore, why should we pump money into expensive geoengineering research that will take years before it can provide a workable, real-world solution? Why not focus on the root cause of climate change: human overconsumption of raw materials, especially fossil fuels? I think there is infinitely more potential in research on sustainable, alternative energy sources that in research on geoengineering. From the article we read, it just seems like the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to geoengineering.

In theory geoengineering seems like a good idea, but when you consider everything else we could be doing, geoengineering just doesn’t make much sense (financially and otherwise).




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s