Warning:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this page will work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: debate on geo-engineering, if the questions listed are answered, if there are no "environmental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo," if it is proven that this technology stimulates photosynthe- sis, and if it is proven that dead plants can be buried so that they don't release CO2, then we should plant more trees therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should plant more trees, these objections need to be specified for each of the available options. It does not make any sense to discuss them without specifying what might happen 2 categories of geo-engineering technologies remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, geo-engineering technologies "are full of 'unknown unknowns' " (24); applying them "would inevitably produce environmental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo" (2) objects if we should either reduce global temperatures or CO2 emissions, if there is a sense that responses by politicians are inadequate, and if there are pro- posals for last-minute schemes, then we should discuss all available geo-scale climate engineering options and "subject them to critical appraisal by acknowledged experts from around the world", there are no "environ- mental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should add "about 10m tonnes of finely divided sulphate particles to the stratosphere each year" in situations where we don't have better alternatives, remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere currently imaginable geo-engineering technologies recycle "carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into fuel, by reacting it with hydrogen", if geo-engineering may be a way of buying time for the transition to a low-carbon economy to take place in an orderly manner, then we should perform geo- scale climate engineering in situations where we don't have better alternatives therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should perform geo- scale climate engineering in situations where we don't have better alternatives, if the questions listed are answered, if there are no "environmental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo," and if it is proven that this technology cools the global climate, then we should spray saltwater into the atmosphere in situations where we don't have better alternatives therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should spray saltwater into the atmosphere in situations where we don't have better alternatives, if we want to "offset the rise in temperature expected by the middle of the century," then we have to add "about 10m tonnes of finely divided sulphate particles to the stratosphere each year" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we have to add "about 10m tonnes of finely divided sulphate particles to the stratosphere each year", who has the authority to say "No" if concerns like Planktos announce that they "would em bark on a private effort to fertilize part of the South Atlan- tic with iron, in hopes of producing carbon- absorbing plankton blooms that the company could market as carbon offsets." (8-9) implies the need of regulation, if the questions listed are answered, if there are no "environmental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo," if it is proven that this technology stimulates photosynthe- sis, and if it is proven that any enhanced pro- duction [of organic matter] leads "to 'seques- tration' of the material by settling into the deeper water masses (200– 1000m)", then we should perform large-scale experiments to test ocean fertilization, and we should perform ocean fertilization in situations where we don't have better alternatives therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should perform large-scale experiments to test ocean fertilization, and we should perform ocean fertilization in situations where we don't have better alternatives, large-scale experiments should only be performed, and technologies used, after the following questions are answered questions to be answered who has the authority to say "No" if concerns like Planktos announce that they "would em bark on a private effort to fertilize part of the South Atlan- tic with iron, in hopes of producing carbon- absorbing plankton blooms that the company could market as carbon offsets." (8-9), "It would be a mistake to think of geo-engineering as a substitute for curbing carbon-dioxide emissions. ... Brian Launder ..., who edited the Royal Society papers, argues that the sort of geo- engineering schemes they describe might buy the world 20 to 30 years to adjust. That breathing space would be useful if something really bad, such as the collapse into the sea of part of the Green- land ice-shelf, was in imminent danger of happening, and the realisation of the danger led to a political agreement that climate change had to be stopped rapidly." defeats "if people realize there are possible technical fixes for global warming, they will feel less urgency about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 'Even beginning the discussion, putting geoengineering on the table and beginning the scientific work could in itself make us less concerned about all the things that we need to start doing now' (Andrew Light)" (17), These could be "produced by burning high-sulphur aviation fuel" 2 possibi- lities "If aviation fuel were used in this way, and was 5% sulphur (between ten and 100 times today’s levels), it would require 1m flights a year to the middle of the stratosphere (between 15km and 25km up), assuming an average flight was four hours. Those flights alone would use up half as much fuel as civil aviation now consumes", it is proven that this technology removes CO2 from the atmosphere therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should perform large-scale experiments to test CO2 ejection into space, and we should perform the technology in situations where we don't have better alternatives, the questions listed are answered therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should plant more trees, ocean fertilization: "fertilise the oceans with iron. The growth of plankton in the sea is always limited by something. It may be light, or a familiar nutrient such as nitrate or phosphate. In some places, though, iron is the limiting nutrient. Adding iron to such places should cause a bloom of planktonic algae, thus sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere" advantage could be done with existing technologies, if the questions listed are answered, if there are no "environmental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo," and if it is proven that this technology cools the global climate, then we should add "about 10m tonnes of finely divided sulphate particles to the stratosphere each year" in situations where we don't have better alternatives therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should add "about 10m tonnes of finely divided sulphate particles to the stratosphere each year" in situations where we don't have better alternatives, spray saltwater into the atmosphere to make clouds more reflective leads to spray saltwater, "While such geoscale interventions may be risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky than doing nothing." supports if we should either reduce global temperatures or CO2 emissions, if there is a sense that responses by politicians are inadequate, and if there are pro- posals for last-minute schemes, then we should discuss all available geo-scale climate engineering options and "subject them to critical appraisal by acknowledged experts from around the world", large-scale experiments should only be performed, and technologies used, after the following questions are answered questions to be answered "how to com- pensate losers—of whom there will be many. Schemes designed to cool the climate could harm coun- tries such as Canada and Russia. Global war- ming may make their northern wastes more habitable and allow them to exploit oil and gas located under what is now an ice-covered Arctic Ocean"