If all else fails, try Plan B: reflectors in orbit that would reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth by one or two percent.
Credit: Arizona State University
COPENHAGEN: What happens if the world does not each an agreement in Copenhagen? A look at some of the geo-engineering schemes examined by the Royal Society, Britain's academy of sciences.
CARBON REMOVAL PROJECTS
These are schemes that remove carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. Projects that are shown to be "safe, effective, sustainable and affordable" should be deployed alongside cleaner energy and other conventional methods to reduce carbon emissions, the society said in its 81-page report. Among those highlighted:
Planting trees: Afforestation would suck CO2 out of the atmosphere through the natural process of photosynthesis. FOR: Safe, easy, swift and cheap to deploy, good for biodiversity. AGAINST: Only limited potential for carbon removal, potential conflicts over land use (forests vs. food crops).
Bio-energy: Use trees, shrubs and other vegetation as an energy source, such as bio-mass and charcoal. FOR: Affordable and safe. AGAINST: Slow to reduce global temperatures, potential conflicts over land use.
Enhanced weathering: CO2 is removed from the atmosphere over thousands of years by a natural process involving the weathering, or dissolution, of carbonate and silicate soils. Enhanced weathering would accelerate the process by adding silicates to certain soils. FOR: High potential for storing CO2 in the soil. AGAINST: Expensive, slow to take effect and impact on soil acidity and vegetation unclear.
Carbon scrubbers: Build hi-tech towers around the world to capture CO2 molecules from the air. FOR: Safe, technically feasible and very high cleanup potential. AGAINST: Costs unknown but likely to be high, need for infrastructure to store the carbon collected by the towers.
Ocean fertilisation: Sow the open seas with iron nutrients to encourage the growth of marine plants called phytoplankton that suck up CO2 at the surface through photosynthesis. The phytoplankton die and sink to the ocean floor, effectively storing the carbon forever. FOR: Technically feasible, not too expensive. AGAINST: May not work, given complex ocean currents; slow to reduce global temperatures; very high potential for damaging the marine ecosystem.
Oceanic upwelling: Place huge vertical pipes in the sea to pump water from the depths to the surface and from the surface to the depths. FOR: Would boost the efficiency of the ocean as a means of storing CO2. AGAINST: Unfeasible, would only reduce atmospheric CO2 by a tiny fraction, environmental impact unknown.
Man has a poor understanding
Man has a poor understanding of life. He mistakes knowledge for wisdom. He tries to unveil the Holy secrets of our Father, the Great Spirit. He attempts to impose his Laws and ways upon Mother Earth. Even though he, himself, is part of Nature, he chooses to disregard and ignore it, for the sake of his own immediate gain. But the Laws of Nature are far stronger than those of Mankind. Man must awake at last and learn to understand how little time remains before he will become the cause of his own downfall. And he has so much to learn. To learn to see with the heart. He must learn to respect Mother Earth - She who has given life to everything; to our Brothers and Sisters; the Animals and the Plants; to the Rivers, the Lakes, the Oceans and the Winds. He must realise that this Planet does not belong to him, but that he has to care for and maintain the delicate balance of Nature, for the sake of the wellbeing of our children and all future generations. It is the duty of man to preserve the Earth and the Creation of the Great Spirit. Mankind being but a solitary grain of sand, in the Holy Circle which encloses all of life.
hahaha. ahaahaahahaha. My
hahaha. ahaahaahahaha. My goodness! Great Spirit??? Holy Circle??? Give me a break! Pfft....