skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Reuters: πρόγραμμα "σκίασης" του ήλιου
To
Reuters αναφέρει ότι το πρόγραμμα "σκίασης" του ήλιου ΘΑ κοστίσει
περίπου 5 δις δολλάρια.
Μια στιγμή... αυτά που βλέπουμε τόσο καιρό ολοι
εμείς οι παλαβοί και μας λένε ότι είναι καυσαέρια ?
Αυτό που φωνάζουμε
και τα κανάλια μας λένε γραφικούς ? Τελικά όχι μόνο συμβαίνει αλλά
ανακοινώνεται ότι ΘΑ χρησιμοποιηθεί για να αντιμετωπιστεί το φαινόμενο
του θερμοκηπίου απο το Reuters ? Ποιάς οικογένειας είναι το πρακτορείο
αυτο? Η ιδια οικογένεια αγόρασε και το associated press..
Τα 2 αυτά
πρακτορεία ειδήσεων είναι η πηγή παγκοσμίως για τις διεθνείς ειδήσεις.
Η
ίδια οικογένεια έχει όλες τις κεντρικες τραπεζες του κόσμου
(συπεριλαμβανομενης της Τραπεζας Ελλαδος) εκτός απο 3 (ΙΡΑΝ, ΚΟΥΒΑ,
Β.ΚΟΡΕΑ)... Συνδέστε τα κομμάτια του παζλ και θα δειτε την μεγάλη
εικόνα...
Αυτό πάντως που ΔΕΝ υπάρχει και καταγγέλουμε τόσο καιρό
κοστίζει 5 δις...
Απλά το τεστάρανε τοσο καιρό τα παιδια... Τωρα θα το
ανακοινώσουν...
Αντώνης Σωτηρόπουλος, Ομάδα δράσης Αττικής κατά των χημικών αεροψεκασμών
"Sunshade" to fight climate change costed at $5 bln a year
(Reuters) -
Planes or airships could carry sun-dimming materials high into the
atmosphere for an affordable price tag of below $5 billion a year as a
way to slow climate change, a study indicated on Friday.
Guns, rockets or a pipeline
into the stratosphere would be more expensive but generally far cheaper...
than policies to cut world greenhouse gas emissions, estimated to cost
between $200 billion and $2 trillion a year by 2030.
Transporting
a million tonnes of particles to at least 18 km (11 miles) above the
Earth every year to form a sunshade is "both feasible and affordable",
U.S. scientists concluded in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
The
strategy, called "solar radiation management", broadly imitates a
volcanic eruption. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the
Philippines, for instance, blasted out a haze of sun-reflecting
particles that slightly cooled the planet.
The
authors did not examine whether such "geo-engineering" of the planet
was a good idea. Other studies show it might have unwanted side effects,
such as changing rainfall patterns.
"One
attribute of solar radiation management is that it is quite
inexpensive," co-author Professor Jay Apt of Carnegie Mellon University
in Pittsburgh told Reuters.
"That doesn't mean it's the preferred strategy."
PLANES, AIRSHIPS
New
aircraft, specially adapted to high altitudes, would probably be the
cheapest delivery system with a price tag of $1 to $2 billion a year,
they said. A new hybrid airship could be affordable but might be
unstable at high altitudes.
A 20 km
(12 mile)-long "space elevator" pipe hanging from a helium-filled
platform was possible in theory but highly uncertain. Giant guns or
rockets would be much more costly.
Some
experts favour geo-engineering as a quick fix when governments are far
from a deal to slow climate change that is expected to cause more
heatwaves, floods and rising sea levels.
Senior
officials are meeting in Bangkok this week for a new round of U.N.
talks, aiming to agree a deal in 2015. Global greenhouse gas emissions
have continued to rise, with China, the United States and the European
Union the top emitters.
Dimming
sunlight would not, for instance, slow the build-up of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, which is making the oceans more acidic and undermining
the ability of creatures such as mussels or lobsters to build their
protective shells.
Co-author David
Keith at Harvard University said there were serious risks in trying to
dim the sun's rays. But he said it might also "increase agricultural
production by limiting impacts of climate change such as heat stress."
Independent scientists were also cautious.
"Research
into climate engineering, including cost, is vitally important," said
Matt Watson, a lecturer in Natural Hazards at Bristol University.
"However, we must not get drawn into discussion where economics becomes
the key driver."
Apt said
temperatures could jump sharply under suddenly clear skies if society
spewed sulphur into the stratosphere for years but then halted, judging
that disadvantages outweighed the benefits.
"Abrupt
stopping of the delivery of particles to the stratosphere would cause
very rapid climate changes," he said. (Reporting by Alister Doyle;
editing by Andrew Roche)