Safe Planet Technologies
Enlightenment · Climate

Climate Action

Global-warming prevention without the doom or the hype. We take the interventions people actually argue about — from efficiency and renewables to solar geoengineering — and give each a transparent, dimension-by-dimension verdict. We don't advocate. We score the evidence and show every input, so you can disagree with the weighting precisely.
Active debate, not settled fact. The contested interventions below are the subject of real scientific and policy debate, and no government has authorized deploying them. We report each side with attribution and link to the authoritative assessment — we never claim to be the assessment.
Learn

How we judge — the Intervention Stance Scale

For any contested intervention we land on one of five rungs. The rung is the evidence-weighted center of gravity — not an average. Two dimensions are disqualifying for deployment: a zero on reversibility / exit-risk or governance readiness holds an intervention at Research-only or lower, no matter how well it scores elsewhere. Every dimension is shown, so you see exactly where the weighting bites.

5AdoptStrong net-benefit, governable now — keep & scale
4Pursue with guardrailsPromising; deploy only under strict, named conditions
3Research-only · HoldReal potential AND serious unresolved risks — study, don't deploy
2Caution · Lean awayRisks likely outweigh benefits; narrow research only
1Reject · Move awayClear net harm or unacceptable, ungovernable risk

Scored 0–3 across 7 dimensions: efficacy · cost & feasibility · safety & side-effects · equity & justice · moral hazard · reversibility / exit-risk · governance readiness.

Learn

Verdicts so far

Solar Aerosol Injection — a sunshade for the planet?

Research-only · Hold

Could hold warming below 1.5 °C (IPCC AR6 high agreement; the 1991 Pinatubo eruption is the natural analog) and is cheap — but an abrupt halt risks rapid rebound warming, and no framework exists to authorize or control it.

Efficacy evidence3/3
Cost & feasibility3/3
Safety & side-effects1/3
Equity & justice1/3
Moral hazard1/3
Reversibility / exit risk0/3
Governance readiness0/3
Total 9/21 → Rung 3. Termination shock + no global governance cap it, despite top marks on efficacy and cost.

Carbon Capture & Storage — cleanup crew or license to pollute?

Pursue with guardrails

Proven at small scale and storable safely, but expensive and slow, with a real moral-hazard risk of prolonging fossil use. Deploy only where emissions genuinely can't otherwise be cut, under strict measurement.

Efficacy evidence2/3
Cost & feasibility1/3
Safety & side-effects2/3
Equity & justice2/3
Moral hazard1/3
Reversibility / exit risk3/3
Governance readiness2/3
Total 13/21 → Rung 4. Lower on efficacy/cost than SAI, but it's reversible and governable — so it rises to Pursue-with-guardrails.

Same scale, opposite shape — that's the point: the verdict moves with the evidence, not the vibe. Ocean iron fertilization and marine cloud brightening are next.

How we read it

Sources we trust

  • IPCC assessments — the global scientific-consensus baseline (AR6 WG1–3)
  • U.S. National Academies (NASEM) — Reflecting Sunlight (2021); carbon-capture reviews
  • NOAA · NASA — federal Earth-observation + climate science
  • UNEP — One Atmosphere (2023) governance review

Advocacy positions (for or against — e.g. the Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement) are reported with attribution, never as neutral fact. Startup marketing and single-study news write-ups are excluded as sources.

Next

More, soon

🌐 Organizations Coming soon

A vetted, tiered directory of climate organizations — the same A/B/C/D credibility rubric as the Cancer module.

✊ Take Action Coming soon

Footprint reduction, transparency campaigns, and vetted ways to give.

← Back to EnlightenmentSupport this work