Geoengineering schemes need ranking system to avoid wasting
money, destroying the planet October 26, 2008 With so-called
geoengineering proposals proliferating as concerns over climate
change mount, Philip Boyd of New Zealand's NIWA warns that "no
geo-engineering proposal has been tested or even subjected to
preliminary trials". He says that despite widespread media
attention, scientists have yet to even come up with a way to
rank geoegineering schemes for their efficacy, cost, associated
risk, and timeframe. Thus is it unclear whether ideas like
carbon burial, geochemical carbon capture, atmospheric carbon
capture, ocean fertilization, cloud manipulation, "space
sunshades", or strategically-placed pollution can be effective
on a time-scale relevant to humankind, economical, or even safe.
"The rationale for any geo-engineering scheme must be based on
its efficacy," he writes, then noting that existing proposals
have often started out with "overoptimistic claims on efficacy",
"oversimplistic cost estimates", a