Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Geoengineering is too costly

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 01:29, 14 September 2010; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Extended argument

Over-priced in many of the ideas they have, some of those ideas are Launching mirrors in to space, or Spraying ocean water into low flying clouds, or putting seeds in to clouds to manipulate the weather, and finally letting sulfer into the air, now all these methods would work and each one would have a down fall, Launching the mirrors would be the most costly, Spraying Ocean water is the least expensive, same with the putting seeds into clouds would be the most cheapest, but manipulating the weather might have odd effects, and letting sulfur into the air would cause acid rain which would hurt the forests, animals, and people alike, all which have major and real economic costs.

For Geoengineering to work, we would have to develop new technologies that would keep carbon emissions low and wouldn’t hurt the environment in other ways. This could be very costly and may take a very long time. Some of the effects of Geoengineering can be very damaging to the environment over a long period of time, and will do more damage than good. This will, in turn, cost billions more to fix the environment making it less cost-effective[[1]] as the years go by.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.