Somewhere there may be a line to draw between local schemes, e.g. cloud seeding, and large-scale attempts to influence the weather. But the chances of big schemes to interfere with the sun’s rays being counter-productive or just plain going wrong, and/or a waste of money, are high. Also what suits some countries may not suit others. Meanwhile, the UK’s ‘experiments agency’ ARIA wades in with a £57 million bet.
– – –
Das deutsche Umweltbundesamt (UBA), the German Environment Agency recently published a report stating: “The use and technical deployment of Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) is to be rejected. SRM can neither preserve the current climate nor restore the preindustrial climate. Instead, it would create an unpredictable new global climate with significant regional impacts.”
Acknowledged in the paper is the SRM threat to water availability, food security, and ecosystems, says ZeroGeoengineering.com.
The brochure presents SRM as theoretical technologies, while at the same time admitting that the “distinction between research in the context of outdoor experiments and deployment is often blurred in the case of SRM, as it primarily involves the testing of technologies.”
Central in the discussion of SRM is the matter of governance. When honestly evaluated, the only appropriate SRM governance is prohibition.
— 1. Polluting, via SRM or other scheme is a crime.
— 2. The public does not consent to SRM.
— 3. Legitimate governance requires the consent of the governed.
— 4. Therefore the only valid governance option of SRM is prohibition.
Full article here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
May 11, 2025 at 08:49AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 