Sunday, 10 January 2016

CDR Poll!

To all my fellow readers,

Thank you for following my journey of analysing geoengineering processes and articulating your opinions.

I am running another poll, this time regarding CDR methods of geoengineering.  I am curious to know if you believe any of the CDR processes mentioned, should be implemented in the future to mitigate climate change impacts.  Please feel free to voice your opinion in the comment section; it would be highly appreciated.

Furthermore, the ‘Other-please comment’ option is for any other CDR process that I have not included in my blog-posts.  Please let me know in the comment section what other CDR geoengineering process you have in mind and why it should be implemented.

I will leave you with some illustrations I though were entertaining regarding CDR. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Source: Cartoon Movement

Source: Quark Soup by David Apel


  1. Hi Maria,
    Sad to hear this is your last post! I've really enjoyed reading them and have certainly learnt a lot! Will you be continuing blogging?
    I think that you discussion of CDR is a very relevant and neccessary one. If we can't leave CO2 emission reduction in the hands of national action and natural methods, then experiments with artificial means - I believe - are the future!
    Of course there is significant debate over the safety of certain methods which obstruct their experimentation, however I think that it's necessary to test these things out on a small scale or else we could miss out on the change to make the Earth's future a brighter place! Would you agree?

    1. Hi Caitlin, Thank you for your comment! Have another planned post :) I am unsure if I will continue blogging, but I may be posting more sparsely!

      I am glad you feel that CDR has a future in reducing CO2 levels, I feel similarly. I agree with you, small scale testing is essential and in many cases may not even be enough as it is very hard to determine what impacts this process is induced without experimentation and without the ability to understand how a process works.

  2. Hi Maria! I really enjoyed reading your blog over the last few months. I would not have learnt so much about nor discussed regarding geoengineering if you didn't write about it. From my personal point of view, I think that none of the SRM should be implemented because the effects and associated risks are still not very well understood. I feel that the costs (both financial and biological) will be by far more than anticipated positive effects. By contrast, I am more willing to accept CDR because most of the methods (except carbon capture using non-biological actors) are basically enhancing the natural bio-chemical processes of carbon on the Earth. This means that it is relatively easier to track the effects (e.g. the amount of biomass storing carbon), which allows scientists to track the progress and discuss the challenges they face. I think it is an important element of scientific experiment. Although there are still a number of unknown limitations & risks, I believe that we should continue experimenting these methods in small scale under a kind of intergovernmental/global monitoring programme so that global feedback systems help develop better ways to make the most of these technology across the world with as little risk as possible. I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

    1. Hi Satomi, thank you for your lovely comment and your participation through the blog-posts! It is interesting that you prefer CDR, as I have recently been reading that most geoengineering methods that have been studied and are thought for implementation on Earth are SRM methods. In contrast, CDR method need more research and are considered far more costly than SRM methods. However, I personally completely agree with you that CDR methods most of them are an enhancement of natural processes hence may be perceived more natural. Nonetheless, there are still negative impacts that may be induced by CDR methods and need to be mitigated to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere without negatively influencing the environment and the hydrological cycle.