EU Warns Against Potential "Unintended Consequences" Of Geoengineering
An increasing number of climate alarmists who trust "global warming science" have pitched the idea of large-scale interventions such as solar engineering to reverse 'climate change.' They believe human activity is the sole reason for the Earth's increase in temperature and say large-scale intervention is immediately needed to stop the planet's destruction. Some have even called for fleets of planes to spray chemicals into the atmosphere to deflect the sun's rays as the world's last hope for survival.
But not so fast. A report published by the European Commission on Thursday outlined the potential risks and "unintended consequences" of manipulating planetary systems to fight global warming.
The commission warned:
In the context of accelerated global warming, deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's natural systems (referred to as "geoengineering"), such as solar radiation modification, is attracting more attention. However, the risks, impacts and unintended consequences that these technologies pose are poorly understood, and necessary rules, procedures and institutions have not been developed.
Some of these risks include:
These technologies introduce new risks to people and ecosystems, while they could also increase power imbalances between nations, spark conflicts and raises a myriad of ethical, legal, governance and political issues.
Meanwhile, scientists from Harvard University have called for "spraying tiny particles called sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect away sunlight." And MIT recently wrote, "Geoengineering might be our final and only option."
Speaking to reporters this week, Frans Timmermans, the European Union climate policy chief, said, "Nobody should be conducting experiments alone with our shared planet" and "This should be discussed in the right forum, at the highest international level."
European leaders are worried that geoengineering experiments could go horribly wrong if unchecked. The risks of manipulating Earth's climate need to be better understood, and necessary rules and procedures are needed.
to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.
The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.