Proposing geoengineering to reduce the risk of climatic catastrophe often spurs deeply divided stances among environmental thought leaders.
In the following lecture given during the 228th Electrochemical Society Meeting, electrochemical engineer Adam Heller shares his perspective that geoengineering needs to be further researched so that it could be implemented to complement reduced energy use and shifts to renewable sources.
Of course, there are many other perspectives including this interview from January 10, 2014’s Living on Earth during which Steve Curwood discusses the pros and cons of geoengineering with guests David Keith and Clive Hamilton.
Some other resources exploring different sides of the discussion are linked to below:
Climate engineering reconsidered | Scott Barrett et al. | Nature Climate Change
Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise? | Clive Hamilton | The New York Times
Geoengineering: An Idea Whose Time Has Gone | Andrew Beattie & Paul R. Ehrlich | MAHB Blog
One Effect of Climate Change Myths: Solution Denial | John Harte | MAHB Blog
A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto | Jeremy Caradonna et al. | MAHB Blog
What role, if any, do you think geoengineering should have? What are your major concerns with pursuing geoengineering, are there ways they could be addressed?
The views and opinions expressed through the MAHB Website are those of the contributing authors and do not necessarily reflect an official position of the MAHB. The MAHB aims to share a range of perspectives and welcomes the discussions that they prompt.