The previous post looked at how different US government agencies, especially the DOE, are actively researching options of geo-engineering the planet to mitigate the effects of global warming. While these efforts took shape already under the Bush administration, Obama looks like he will continue with yet another unwholesome policy of his predecessor.
John Holdren, the new science advisor to President Obama, is actively considering radical geoengineering ideas in order to halt global warming. One such idea now being discussed with the Obama administration involves launching enormous amounts of pollution particles into Earth’s upper atmosphere to block the sun’s rays and “chill” the planet.
This idea of eliminating of eliminating the effects of atmospheric pollution by adding more pollution is utterly absurd.
First, adding pollutants like sulphur to the upper atmosphere is playing a risky game with the earth’s ecosystem. And, let’s face it, allowing scientists to be the game players might not only dim the planet but also make our chances of success look pretty dim. After all, it’s been science that got us into the current predicaments in the first place. Scientists have a pretty bad track record in holistically predicting outcomes in highly complex systems, and even Holdren admits unspecified and unknown risks – apart from studies that already suggesting that artificially added particles might eat away a large chunk of the ozone layer above the poles and cause the Mediterranean and the Mideast to be much drier. We better let people in these areas know that it’s time to stand up and declare loudly that science cannot be trusted with any geoengineering efforts.
Secondly, even if global dimming strategies would work, what would happen then? Would we stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Of course not. So far we have not managed to handle our global warming contributions sensitively and rationally, and the chances are that we will continue polluting, thinking either that we’ve found a panacea or that we have bought ourselves more time before we have to act. Most likely, all we will end up with as a result will be a vicious cycle of impoverishing the earth’s atmosphere with chemtrails and pumping out more greenhouse gases. The idea of global dimming is just another one of those techno-fix bandaid solutions that allows the cause to fester rather than being cured.
Third: let’s not forget that life on this planet thrives on sunlight because it promotes plant growth, and plants are pretty much parts of most species food chain, including of course our own. One might think that dimming sunlight a bit might not have a major impact; after all: it’s less than having a cloudy day. Wrong! Why? Read this excerpt from an article by Mike Adams in natural news:
1816 is known in the western world as the “year without a summer” because of the eruption of a massive volcano named Tambora located in modern-day Indonesia. The amount of particulate matter ejected into the atmosphere by the volcano dimmed the sun across much of the world and chilled the summer temperatures so drastically that to this day, the year 1816 is called “Eighteen hundred and froze to death.“
That year, a record-keeping meteorologist named Edward Holyoke recorded this entry on June 7 (which should be summer): “…exceeding[ly] cold. Ground frozen hard, and squalls of snow through the day. Icicles 12 inches long in the shade at noon day.”
A poem from that year reads,
The trees were all leafless, the mountains were brown
The face of the country was scathed with a frown
And bleak were the hills, and the foliage sere
As had never been seen at that time of the year.
You can read more about the Summer of 1816 here at Wikipedia
Fourth: it would be naive to assume that sulphur chemtrails will stay within the atmospheric layer they were dropped onto. Sulphur returning to earth can have devastating outcomes. In my last post I already mentioned how it can negatively impact on human health. On top of that, we know already from past experience the role sulphur plays in creating acid rain, and we have seen its results. And what we don’t know anything about are any other consequences for the eco system, such as acidification of oceans, rivers and lakes, and the effects on other life forms.
So, all in all there are too many concerns outweighing possible benefits of global dimming strategies (and I say ‘possible’ because we can’t even guarantee they will work while we still facing the risks of trying). At this point in time therefore, undertaking any geoengineering effort simply is an act of foolishness.
[Cartoon by Mike Adams]