It is projected to start within the next few weeks and results will occur very soon. If, of course, the whole thing is even remotely successful.
They will be injecting aerosols into the atmosphere and brightening the clouds to reflect sunlight. Not only is this a complete and bizarre waste of money that could be better spent, but it’s also incredibly damaging to our planet.
The UK government’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) is funding a series of experiments under the “Exploring Climate Cooling Programme”. Solar geoengineering encompasses various techniques aimed to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface.
Despite the potential benefits, solar geoengineering has sparked significant debate among scientists, environmentalists, and policymakers. Critics argue that such interventions could lead to very severe consequences such as accelerating global warming.
This project will use sulfur dioxide, calcium carbonate and aluminium oxide particles. From one problematic thing to another, sulfur dioxide is toxic to breathe in and it can damage ecosystems, including plants and water sources. Aluminium particles can bioaccumulate in our soil and waters. Again, affecting ecosystems. Our wildlife, our plants, and potentially even humans, would be ingesting that from the water we drink and the crops we grow in the land.
My biggest question is why are they doing this in the UK when we do not get enough sunlight as it is?
We are not suffering the effects of climate change to that great of an extent, in terms of heat, to justify such a ridiculous project. Why, if it is so necessary to our living, are they not testing it in warmer climates? It is known that the UK population is deficient in Vitamin D so again, why are we dimming the sun even more?
There is great potential for catastrophe here, and I have not seen enough news sources reporting on it.
Public petitions have garnered thousands of signatures, with individuals expressing concerns about the ethical implications and potential environmental impacts of such interventions. Opponents argue that the focus should remain on reducing carbon emissions and transitioning to renewable energy sources rather than experimenting with unproven technologies.
The lack of international governance and public consultation has raised ethical questions about the legitimacy of unilateral geoengineering experiments. The United Nations has previously warned that such interventions could interfere with human rights and have far-reaching consequences. Advocates for transparency and accountability argue that any geoengineering efforts should involve comprehensive public engagement and adhere to international regulations. I don’t think we need any more exposure to toxic chemicals, and the very idea of this conjures up images of humans being tested on like guinea pigs.
I wonder why, if they have the funds to invest in masking the sun and symptoms of climate change and environmental effects, why are they not using that money to make stricter laws around plastic consumption or chemicals that we are using daily? Surely, these have a much greater effect on our ecosystems? Why not use that money to combat and prevent climate change? Why are they already trying to mitigate it in the future?
These changes the government is silently making are being swept under the rug. We have seen in studies already that we are being exposed to worsening levels of untested chemicals, which are making us sick.
As the UK embarks on these experimental trials, the global community watches closely and braces for impact.