Geoengineering refers to the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system to counteract climate change, such as by reflecting sunlight, increasing precipitation, or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Proponents argue that geoengineering could provide innovative solutions to global warming. Opponents argue that it is risky, unproven, and could have unforeseen negative consequences.
@ISIDEWITH1mo1MO
Yes
@9N9CHQZ2wks2W
The currents complaints about the climate are centered around the unintended consequences of using fossil-fuel throughout the history of mankind and especially so within the last melania. I do not want to try to think of the unintended consequences of trying to directly manipulate our world on a mass level. Even if successful in the short term it could have long-term consequences. Why would I want to temp catastrophe from a different source.
Before any mass expeditions in to this field extensive strenuous testing needs to be done. It needs to be heavily regulated do that some company does not… Read more
@ChaseOliver 3wks3W
@9MJTP4G1mo1MO
Yes, but with caution and careful consideration of potential risks and benefits.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 3wks3W
Yes, the Department of Interior should engage in P3's to research geoengineering and other ways to combat climate change
Funding for research, but only so long as it does not detract from increasing and maintaining ongoing actions to reduce emissions.
@9N9R5XT 2wks2W
Yes, but carefully and with stringent guidelines in place to ensure it is being carried out as safely as possible.
Only if they allow scientist from all spectrums to discuss an evaluate. I prefer methods that are natural like regenerative farming, which is good for people and the planet.
@9MQ3BJM4wks4W
Yes, at this point some level of geoengineering may be necessary to combat climate change and remediate the damage done so far.
@9MKVB244wks4W
I believe that it should be funded by charitable organizations
@9MKMTMV4wks4W
Yes and no because so many other companies already have
@9MKLQMR4wks4W
No, there are other more proven ways to combat climate change.
I don't understand this topic enough to have an opinion
@9MKCMTPLibertarian4wks4W
Research should be funded, but with STRICT oversight into where and how any funding is spent. There should also be CLEAR articulable goals to the research.
@9MK2RR41mo1MO
Yes, but research should also focus on how to use this without negatively affecting food and water security.
@9NMQZ5Q2wks2W
Government should explore geoengineering strategies to keep options open, but should prioritize prevention of global warming.
@ChaseOliver 3wks3W
The best way for government to combat climate change would be to lower taxes and end artificial barriers to entry that protect favored firms and stifle innovation. Doing so would allow the market to find solutions.
@9MS62CQLibertarian3wks3W
How about put a bigger focus on sef sufficiency & sustainability and less on convenience instead of trying to manipulating the world to fit us?
@9MRSJBQIndependent3wks3W
Yes, but it should be used as a supplement to alternative solutions that target the root of the problem instead of a replacement
@SenBR2003 4wks4W
Yes, but regulate geoengineering to prevent unintended consequences on the planet's climate systems.
No, but the government should still invest in other renewable energy sources.
@Dry550Independent 4wks4W
No, the idea may prove to be popular, however the risks involved are indeed untested and unproven and could have disastrous results if precautions aren’t taken. The risks outweigh the possibilities of learning
@9MLDG2Q4wks4W
No, as it gives corporations an out of the negative climate impacts they cause, and will decrease demand for reform.
@9MKC6RY4wks4W
There are plenty of other ways to combat climate change.
@9MK95NM1mo1MO
Why are non-environmental products still being produced!!
@9MJZVCG 1mo1MO
No, however funding should go into programs for restricting emissions and actions which may further climate change.
@9NFFLMZ2wks2W
Not until more data is provided outiling the potential risks and safety measures put in place to prevent them
@9NFDDLZ2wks2W
We should try to find if this energy source has any consequences before making a decision on using it.
@9NCW7BK2wks2W
Nope - we have better ways to protect the Earth than these. Remember, for each reaction there will be an equal opposite reaction.
@LucidLibertarian 2wks2W
No, geoengineering has been used for years and is likely contributing to global climate changes by disrupting natural weather patterns and fluctuations. Nature balances itself out just fine; geoengineering is interfering with that balance.
@RobinHoudeDemocrat 3wks3W
Yes, but only with international cooperation since unintended effects would not be limited to national borders
@QueenedPrincess 20hrs20H
Yes, any legit research is good and can help us understand the Earth better and improve our current climate models. We shouldn't go engineer, but researching it is important.
@9P9789Q22hrs22H
No. Let earth rid itself of its infestation of the creatures that pilfer its resources and destroy the one thing that gives them life.
@9P45XBT4 days4D
Yes, but gather more information on geoengineering and the long term effects it holds on society and the world.
@9P3JCM74 days4D
Local communities should study geoengineering and how to best use it for their communities. Abolish all forms of capitalism and keep it out of climate protection.
@9NXW9RJ 5 days5D
No. The government should not be involved in geoengineering. The government should not be involved in funding any scientific or environmental research in any way.
@9MK2GPM1mo1MO
No geoengineering should be a last resort due to the potential damages, first invest in renewables and carbon capture.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
