Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts
Debate: Geoengineering, solar shading
From Debatepedia
(List of links)
< Debate: Geoengineering, solar shadingThe following pages link to Debate: Geoengineering, solar shading:
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).- Debate: Space-based solar shield
- Debate: Geoengineering, iron fertilization of algae blooms
- Debate: Solar shading by aerosol
- Debate: Solar shading by sulfate dust
- Global climate change debate portal
- Debate: Solar shading with airborne particles
- Debate: Reforestation as a solution to global warming
- Debate:Geoengineering, solar shading (redirect page)
- Past Debate Digest topics
- Debate:Solar shading (redirect page)
- Argument: Solar shading is a just response to irreversible global warming
- Argument: A space shield would be far too expensive
- Argument: Geoengineering is just as likely to damage the environment as help
- Argument: Injecting sulphates into the atmosphere would destroy the ozone
- Argument: Geoengineering has gained credibility in scientific communities
- Argument: Volcanic clouds do great damage, as would solar shading
- Argument: Geoengineering concepts dampen public will to cut emissions
- Argument: Solar shading would reduce sunlight received by plants
- Argument: Sulphate solar shading may increase cloud cover
- Argument: Sulphate solar shading will change the appearance of the sky
- Argument: Solar shading reduces sunlight energy available to solar panels
- Argument: Once geoengineering begins, there is no going back
- Argument: Who gets to decide what temperature and climate is ideal?
- Argument: Geoengineering technologies risk being used for military purposes
- Argument: Solar shading might cool tropics, but not high latitudes and poles
- Argument: Solar shield reverses global warming; emissions reductions do not
- Argument: Discontinuing solar shading would result in rapid warming
- Argument: Solar shading approaches threaten to increase ocean acidification
- Argument: Sulfur shading "solves" global warming by polluting the air
- Argument: Global shading offers a back-up plan to cutting emissions
- Argument: Sunshield costs are reasonable in face of global warming
- Argument: Solar shading can effectively and rapidly reverse global warming
- Talk:Debate: Space-based solar shield
