The director of the Alfred Wegener Institute said that the experiment was to understand the role of iron in climate system. He said it was not a geo-engineering option of sequestering carbon dioxide into the waters. The team has started discharging the solution into the water.
The question we would like to ask is: are scientific and legal objections alone to be considered? How inclusive of ecological considerations is our scientific view? Science has been largely viewed as a force unto itself with its sole mandate to find the truth. But when the means involves invasive methods, how benign is it?
Do we really know what 20 tons of iron sulfate across a 300 square kilometer patch in the South Atlantic ocean could mean to marine life? Perhaps the Indian team from National Institute of Oceanography can explain. The explosion of plant life, mainly planktons, that would suck in the carbon dioxide is unquestionably ocean-engineering. Could someone explain how it is not?
Meanwhile, a study on geo-engineering says, ocean fertilization options are “only worthwhile if sustained on a millennial timescale and phosphorus addition probably has greater long-term potential” than either iron or nitrogen”. Can the planet take all those experiments of different groups?
The study looks at ideas like sun shades in the sky, aerosol spraying, etc and concludes that if present trends continue, by 2050, only stratospheric aerosol injections or sunshades in space have the potential to cool the climate back toward its pre-industrial state.
Costs will be high and it is best to avoid adding to the problem instead of looking at ways to doctor ecosphere. Unless we mend our ways drsatically, we will need to do some altering our environment.
What are your views? Is that a better idea? Instead of giving up on those 'dreams of a luxurious life, is it better to change the planet?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment