Space mirrors spread a dangerous distraction for the efforts of the green transformation

What is the realistic path of moving forward to confront the climate crisis? Is it an ongoing deployment of renewable energy sources at a lightning speed? Or the blind dependence on techniques that reflect the sun’s heat of the planet? Some prominent climate sounds believe that the last option – solar geological engineering – is now our perfect choice. This interpretation is at best dark, and at worst is dangerous. Farun Sivaram, the first colleague in the field of energy and climate in the US State Council for Foreign Relations, launched the ‘Climate Realism Initiative’ this month. In an article in which the concept was presented, Sivarram wrote that the global climate goals were not achieved, and that the shift to clean energy was carrying ‘serious dangers’ in the interests of the United States, and that American emissions did not affect the course of climate change. A year after the difficult climate conversations. The smaller alliances are this alternative to omitting the fact that the United States is the second largest source of emissions in the world, and that clean energy provides a way for energy security at reasonable prices for its citizens, as well as for the tremendous progress we have made – although fast – in green transformation. What is really worried is what he calls realistic climate solutions that he suggests. Big cities can essentially drown; These solutions mean surrender. Sivaram suggests that policymakers expect and plan the average temperature worldwide with at least 3 degrees Celsius, and it is a catastrophic scenario that can solve the ice peaks so that their cities of Miami and Shanghai become under the sea level. It is also argued that the ‘most logical path’ to avoid the worst effects of climate change is the geological engineering of the solar power- that is, the opposite of sunlight to space to cool the earth in different ways, ranging from spacecraft to the injection of foggy mist in the upper atmosphere. Sivara is not alone in these approaches. A book by German writer Thomas tries to publish it in March to present “armed arguments” to implement these instruments. David King, the former British government representative for climate change issues, wrote in the Guardian newspaper on April 7 that it was time to explore ‘extreme options’, including the injection of salt spray to extract above the seas to increase its brightness and turn the light. Of the electric cars for nuclear energy. It is the most important climate expectations in 2025 that the idea that solar energy engineering, also known as solar radiation management, is now our only hope, and that we must accelerate its application, will increase as we find climate ambitions and are dangerous. Easy exit or an end shock? While President Donald Trump is undermining years of environmental progress in the United States, it does not surprise me that these arguments are gaining momentum. For example, the injection of the Gerosphiri -Aerosols is likely to be cheaper and faster in the application than building renewable energy and hiring our economies to rely on electricity and restore our natural views. There is a temptation in the perception that the penetration of our planet’s action mechanism is an easy way out. But this is not a solution. These forms of geological engineering go no further than a painful housing that covers the damage we have done without treating the cause of it, which is the emissions of the burning of fossil fuels we produce daily. Instead of cleaning the atmosphere and providing energy, water and food security, it can lead to the contrary. And if we decide – or force – to stop, then the full power of the climate crisis will cause us quickly and call the shock of the end. It is the most prominent climate -related achievements in 2024 King’s right to accurately investigate these methods. We must be able to accurately identify risks and benefits before these technologies are completely excluded or adopted to save us. There is also an ethical dimension: are the deaths that are likely to be caused by the injection of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere layer that is better than the deaths caused by the heat waves that can be avoided? Simply, we don’t know enough to answer. Climate Proceds The growth of the ‘relationship between pessimism and geological engineering’, as climate scientist Michael Man describes it, makes the need to work more urgently. As all countries begin to act to serve their own interests, as Sivaram suggests, we can see a country that applies the management of solar radiation from one side. As I wrote last year, it will not help the world climate, but it can change local or regional weather patterns, and are considered a provocation or war action. It issued about half of the US states, or a ban on solar engineering, including Arizona, Florida and South Dakota. However, these laws differ in their details and are closely related to the theories of Kimetril plot. The scientific advisers of the European Union have recommended that the union be put under pressure to impose a global ban on the management of solar energy that can be revised every 5 to ten years to see the latest research. This agreement will be a big step as it enables accurate research, and the early and unintentional activation of activities that we have not yet understood. Perhaps we should thank Sivaram and King for the introduction of solar geological engineering in the heart of interests. Until recently, this issue was considered taboo, for fear that the agreement would lead to the normalization of these methods or note the urgent task of reducing emissions. This led to the emergence of a mystery and innovative environment. Private companies such as “Mick Sansets”, which call a ritual balloons full of sulfur dioxide and sell the SO calls “cool balances”. ‘Stard’, an Israeli boot business that did not publicly disclose the details of its technology, business model or his work, could also establish his business in light of the small or non -existent general supervision. Research financing comes mainly from private sources, which limit the discussion and those entitled to participate in it. The continuation of this road is loaded with risks, but the management of solar radiation will not return to the bottom as it begins. We need to place urgent barriers and guidance, and begin a more open and sincere dialogue on the risks and potential benefits.