Sentences with phrase «if geoengineering research»

If geoengineering research is in general justified, certain kinds of research themselves raise ethical questions.

Not exact matches

Nicholson says that even if research agencies under Trump avoid research into geoengineering techniques such as albedo modification, the U.S. intelligence community might remain interested, especially in whether other countries are pursuing their own planetary cooling technologies, which could affect many nations.

Other recent research on geoengineering using solar radiation management has also found that if the practice did begin but was then stopped, it could lead to rapid climate change with potentially hazardous consequences (ClimateWire, Nov. 27, 2013).

If research shows that predicted temperature rises could be limited by geoengineering, it is likely there will be pressure to go ahead, with a corresponding reduction in pressure to limit emissions.

If a research program normalizes geoengineering as a solution to climate change then it may reduce the incentives to abate greenhouse gas emissions (2, 15, 17).

• If the international community embraces geoengineering as a means for addressing climate change, who will fund, direct and provide oversight for research, development and implementation?

As researchers concluded in a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters, ocean iron fertilization can only prove successful as a climate geoengineering approach if, in addition to phytoplankton bloom stimulation, «a proportion of the particulate organic carbon (POC) produced must sink down the water column and reach the main thermocline or deeper before being remineralized... and the third phase is long - term sequestration of the carbon at depth out of contact with the atmosphere.»

Geoengineering research proponent Ken Caldeira has said «the vision of Lomborg's Climate Consensus is «a dystopic world out of a science fiction story... Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions... If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it's pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly&Geoengineering research proponent Ken Caldeira has said «the vision of Lomborg's Climate Consensus is «a dystopic world out of a science fiction story... Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions... If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it's pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly&Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions... If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it's pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly&geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it's pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly».»

A major finding of our research was that if solar geoengineering started and then decades later stopped suddenly (e.g., due to interstate conflict), there would be a great increase in the climate change threat to biodiversity.

While teaching about this I got excited about doing more research and ultimately, at John Hopkins, Simon Nicholson from American University and I decided that there should be a think tank that would try to ensure that if we do decide to look at climate geoengineering as a society, that we include all of the stakeholders... That was one of the fears we had, so the purpose of these kind of forums are to ensure that other stakeholders like NGOs and the general public — who would be affected by these technologies — are a part of the conversation.

If Lomborg's cost - benefit analyses got one thing right, it was that research into both the good and the bad aspects of solar geoengineering is desirable.

One issue looming over solar geoengineering research is how — if at all — it will be used by society.

Even if an extensive research program proves that geoengineering is an inferior substitute for cutting emissions, its availability as an option may result in its implementation all the same.

So, no one is saying you can't do basic research on any geoengineering method, no matter how potentially risky or benign, effective or ineffective it might be, but if you want to take that research beyond that small - scale you have to be able to prove you're not going to radically screw up the environment that previous human activity is already screwing up.

Kahan's own research has shown that people who might be identified as technophiles are more likely to concede that climate change is a problem if they are given information about possible technological fixes, such as geoengineering.

If nuclear winter research is not scientific, then why are the Russians having a conference about geoengineering?

Research turned instead to controversial «geoengineering» schemes for interventions that might restrain global warming if it started to become unbearable.

If we can somehow arrange that we never build another CO2 - emitting device, I would happily call for the geoengineering research budget to remain at $ 0 per year.