No that's lib shit. An absolutely wonderful example of how our corporate elite manufacture consent for the lib crowd. And it's not even very subtle with the "Sponsored by British Petroleum
" disclaimer after the byline lol.
You see this with cannabis all the time. Here's how Fox does their anti-weed coverage:
That kind of shit isn't gonna be very convincing to the libs. You gotta be a little more subtle.
Well if scientists
think weed is dangerous!
The result is the same Fox crap: planting the seed that maybe legalization isn't such a good idea.
That's what's going on with this BP article. You can't tell libs "climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to make you eat the bugs and live in pods". Libs know climate change is real. But if scientists have some kind of magic dust that will lower the earth's temperature....well mayyyybe
we don't need to worry about reducing Co2/BP's profits THAT much. At the very least, there's no rush.
It's also clickbait. They link the letter:
Given the severity of climate change, scientists and scientific bodies have recommended research on potential approaches to increasing the reflection of sunlight (or release of long wave radiation) from the atmosphere, referred to as “solar radiation modification” (SRM), to slow climate warming...
Blocking the sun seems like a shitty idea to me. If there's too much Co2 in the air, reduce Co2 emissions.
But these scientists point out that overall pollution is going down. That's good. But particulates in air pollution do block out some sunlight, reducing temperature a bit. Air particulate pollution is going to decrease faster than Co2 emissions over the next few decades. That may trigger a feedback loop leading to much faster than expected warming.
These 60 scientists believe we should study if it's possible to replace the air particulates with some some sort of aerosol that reflects light. They seem to think it's probably a bad idea, but worth studying. I don't think that's totally unreasonable.