Research into solar geoengineering is facing significant societal resistance. Recent experiments, including a small-scale field test off the California coast, have been met with public outcry and calls for halting such studies.

The debate has escalated internationally, with a divide between nations supporting research and those, particularly in the Global South, advocating for a non-use agreement to prevent deployment.

Editor’s Note: This article gives us a good introduction to geoengineering and why we should not play with this kind of technology. For one, the risks of geoengineering far outweigh its benefits. The potential risks—such as ecological disruption, unforeseen consequences, and social inequities—raise significant concerns.

Second, the rationale being used for geoengineering is at best faulty. While the climate alarmists focus on carbon as the source of climate change, more pressing ecological issues like over-extraction and pollution are being ignored. The push for geoengineering is not for the well-being of communities. [Read A Call for Balanced Scientific Debate on the Climate Change Narratives by Randall Carlson, Challenging the Climate Consensus: Debunking CO2’s Impact on Global Warming, 2016 Study Found Carbon Dioxide Is Greening the Earth to understand the climate hoax better].

The precautionary principle advocates for preventive action in the face of uncertainty, shifting the burden of proof to those proposing potentially harmful technologies. This principle is essential, especially as the climate agenda often imposes one-size-fits-all solutions that fail to consider local contexts and the complex realities of different communities. [Also read Geoengineering is Real, Geoengineering Test Quietly Launches Salt Crystals into Atmosphere].

Read Original Article