Dr. Doherty and her colleagues stressed that research into cloud brightening must not be seen as an alternative to cutting emissions, but rather a strategy that might one day become necessary to buy the world some time until those emissions are reduced.
I’m not delighted that this needs to be experimented with (and I don’t think anyone is), but as long as it’s used as intended, it could turn out to be a net positive.
“The City is evaluating the chemical compounds in the spray to determine if they are a hazard either inhaled in aerosol form by humans and animals, or landing on the ground or in the bay.”
If it comes from the bay, I think it’s safe to assume it can go into the bay. :)
As for the rest, I think it’s OK for them to evaluate - and they are likely to reach the concusion that spraying seawater into the air is what the sea does on its own, and humans are pretty well adapted to reasonable amounts, so the instruction will be:
“spray it from the leeward side, it’s polite that way”
“don’t put your face in front of the working sprayer”
That’s a lot of effort to solve a problem that could be severely dented by pursuing policies that take cars off the road and hold corporations responsible for the environment.
Yeah I think that’s pretty obvious. The problem is that we as citizens can’t really seem to make that happen. A lot are trying and making a lot of noise and yet the politicians and corporations are barreling on down the road. All I’m saying is that if I’m a scientist who has an idea that might help buy time for our species, it might be worth pursuing because I can’t just go snap my fingers and make every city build usable public transportation.
Add comment