But They DID Advocate For Unproven Interventions…

As a lifelong scientist, I have always believed that if something is possible, we can find a way to achieve it. And yet, one of the starkest realities we now face is that the world is failing to meet its climate goals.

Well, perhaps the mistake was setting them in the first place? 

Scientists agree we need to bring greenhouse gas levels down to below 350 parts per million by the end of this century to ensure a liveable planet for future generations. Achieving this will require a four-pronged approach: reduce, remove, repair and resilience.

And it'll need everyone on the planet to agree with them and be onboard with it. There's your main drawback. 

Reduction – cutting emissions rapidly and deeply – of course remains a critical priority. But we must also pursue the removal of excess carbon, explore repair techniques to stabilise key ecosystems and build resilience against the escalating impacts we are already experiencing.

Such as? 

One of the greatest challenges of climate science today is that many of the necessary levers to regain control are uncomfortable, even controversial. Ideas such as thickening sea ice to prevent collapse or brightening marine clouds to reflect sunlight may once have seemed extreme. Yet, as we contend with an escalating crisis, we must at least explore these possibilities. We do not have the luxury of rejecting solutions outright before we have thoroughly investigated their risks, trade-offs and feasibility.

Yes, we do. That's always our prerogative.  

As scientists, we must never advocate for deploying unproven interventions.

*cough* Covid vaccinations *cough* 

Any repair or removal techniques must undergo rigorous research and assessment before we evaluate full-scale suitability. However, we must also be clear: these investigations must happen with urgency. The longer we delay, the fewer options remain on the table and the more likely that deployment will happen without the proper due diligence at a point of desperation.

I refer you back to Covid... 

There are also many who object on ethical, political or environmental grounds, often for entirely understandable reasons. We must respect these concerns and ensure that any research is conducted transparently, with input from affected communities and with the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous rights-holders.

What? If a possible solution is found, it's not going to come from some bloody witchdoctor, is it? It going to come from western science.  

Throughout history, scientific breakthroughs have changed the course of humanity when leaders and communities worked together to act on the evidence before them. The Montreal protocol successfully phased out CFCs after the discovery of the ozone hole.

And look how long it took for us to see any success of that project. So, why exactly should we jump at the first mad idea to come along simply because people like you are wetting their y-fronts over climate chsnge? Especially when the so-called answers end up costing people's lives...