Among the proposals and ideas that have been put on the table by the scientific community to stop or even reverse the effects of climate change are solutions from the field of so-called “geoengineering”.
This is an area from which various ideas and proposals for reversing climate change through drastic interventions in nature are emerging.
But these are ideas for which the scientific community has not yet concluded whether they will be effective and safe, and many are considered controversial as unworkable or even harmful.
Indeed, the use of geoengineering has been proposed beyond the borders of the Earth.
Some, including Elon Musk, argue that geomechanical methods can make Mars hospitable so that when we manage to make manned journeys there we can live on the planet in conditions close to those on Earth.
In a paper published in the journal “Environmental Research Communications”, a research team led by scientists from Yale University presents a study in which the re-cooling of our planet’s poles is mentioned as a feasible and relatively low-cost solution to reverse the phenomenon of global warming.
It is known that the Arctic regions are experiencing climate change and warming more than any other part of the planet, while Antarctica is also melting rapidly.
THE RESEARCHERS SAY THAT AIRCRAFT FLYING AT 15 KM (ABOVE THE ALTITUDE AT WHICH PASSENGER AND COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FLY) WILL SPRAY THE POLAR REGIONS WITH AEROSOLS, WHICH ARE FINE PARTICLES OF SOLID OR LIQUID DISPERSED IN AIR OR GAS.
According to the researchers, the fall of aerosols from this height will create a kind of artificial shadow on the surface of the polar regions, resulting in a process of refreezing of these areas in order to stop the melting of the ice, which has reached alarming proportions in recent years.
The idea is that this way most of the solar radiation will remain trapped in the ice and will not be reflected back as it is now, thus contributing to warming.
The method called stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) will have an estimated cost of about $11 billion per year, which is far less than other proposed methods of combating climate change, conventional or otherwise.
It now remains to be seen how the scientific community will react to this idea and whether there will be a positive response or whether, as has happened in other similar cases, some possible negative consequences of this method will emerge that will make it risky or even dangerous.
