Solar radiation management (SRM) introduces a geo-engineering method of reducing Earth’s absorption of solar energy by adding light-scattering aerosols to the stratosphere or lengthening the lifetime and reflectivity of the low-lying clouds. However, scientists have been debating against the research on SRM, as it will reduce the political resolve to reduce emissions of greenhouse-gas. SRM is cheap, fast and imperfect, it is estimated that it can reduce the global average rise of temperature at least 100 times more cheaply than emissions cuts. These qualities make it a promising tool against climate change, but it would result in less precipitation and less evaporation. Certain areas would have greater protection than others, hence some countries would be left vulnerable. Furthermore, SRM could weaken monsoon rains and winds, and introduces risks like delaying the recovery of the ozone hole.
With millions of dollars at stake, and the risk it poses, thorough field testing is required. We have to understand the risks involved and from there work out whether it is worth to be implemented and come up with better solutions. A vigilant climate strategy requires adaptation and deep cuts in emissions. A good management SRM carefully in such a way that while managing the associated environmental and political risks, such cuts are not compromised.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In all, this summary highlights the main points in which why there is still a debate going on against the research on SRM. I believe that weighing the advantages and disadvantages would lead the management to a better and wiser decision of to whether to continue or discontinue with the research. Yes, like you mentioned, I agree that understanding of the risks involved is an important factor and working out from there is a feasible idea. A good management is one that balances everything not compromising anything. Overall, this summary is good except for some grammatical errors and sentence structuring.
ReplyDelete