As global temperatures soar, technological fixes will attempt to alleviate future catastrophic conditions. If technology prevents or slows climate crises, then nations will support such efforts. One fix, according to the IPCC is Carbon Dioxide Removal. CDR’s far-fetched goal is achieving net negative emissions and reverse anthropogenic climate change (IPCC Headline, 2). Other solutions, many from science-fiction, could emerge, yet it is easy to predict associated consequences. Launching particles into the atmosphere helps cool the planet, but it may block solar energy vital for plant grow from reaching the earth’s surface. Covering the earth in reflective white sheets boosts the planet’s albedo, but it may displace many species. These ideas, like many techno-fixes and especially CDR, don’t fix the problem at the source. Rather, they enable the systematic energy consumption that causes climate change in the first place. It is doubtful that an effective solution can be implemented in the limited time remaining. Perhaps as we brainstorm a grander socio-technological answer, conventional techno-fixes can buy us precious time.
Claiming that the field of climate science is too young for accuracy is an inaccurate position. Reidy’s text verifies that early greenhouse effect studies were already happening in the nineteenth century. Reidy writes that John Tyndall proposed in 1861 “any changes to the constitution of the atmosphere” would cause climate change (Reidy, 13). This timeframe places the origins of climate science a couple years behind Darwinian natural selection and decades before Einsteinian relativity. A theory’s accuracy isn’t based on how long it has been around. A field’s prestige comes from consilience and research-based support from across academia. The most recent ICPP report, was written by “hundreds of climate scientists who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies” (Davenport, 2). Those numbers aren’t trivial, and, like evolution or relativity, climate science deserves recognition.