Lucy Alexander, 5B, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21636040-experiments-designed-learn-more-about-ways-geoengineering-climate-should-be-allowed

CLAIM:

The editorial’s central claim focuses on the potential remedies for global warming. It makes the point that although methods of geoengineering, such as spraying minuscule pieces of salt into clouds to make them “shinier,” may seem risky and potentially harmful to the environment, they could be used as insurance and can not be ignored in the fight against global warming if current methods fail to work.  

EVIDENCE:

The editorial pushes for the conduction of experiments to see if geoengineering is a feasible solution to global warming. It argues that “The experiments would be far too small to have any climatic effects. The amount of sulphur put into the stratosphere by the experimental balloon would be 2% of what a passenger jet crossing the Atlantic emits in an hour.” Therefore, we should have no excuse to not put these experiments to work. There is also no evidence that the planet is going to miraculously start getting cooler. The editorial mentions that even with carbon emission cuts, it will still take a while for the cuts to make an impact on the environment, and in the meantime, the temperature will keep rising. To prove this, the editorial says that “Although they have not soared in the past couple of decades as they did in the 1980s and 1990s, there is a fair chance that this year will tie with the hottest on record.” Thus, geoengineering experiments should be seriously considered for the future.

OPINION:

I would agree with the editorial that we definitely need to find other methods to address the problem of global warming. The idea of spraying reflective particles into the air made me nervous at first because I thought that it would negatively affect the environment. After reading the editorial, I determined that it is a good idea to look into geoengineering. Performing small tests would not affect the environment and would provide substantial information as to if geoengineering is a good option. I think we should definitely perform many tests to be sure of all of the consequences of geoengineering before we actually do anything on a large scale. I personally feel that we should use geoengineering as a last resort (if it does work), because I think there are probably many other methods that would be safer, more effective, and not cause as much debate, such as more cuts on carbon emissions and the creation of smaller, more fuel efficient cars.