Although I don't put much credence in dire warnings about man-made global warming, it looks like Nobel Prize-winning Professor Paul Crutzen has come up with a way to slow or stop global warming that will be as much as 1000 times cheaper and far more effective than implementing the Kyoto Protocol.
Professor Crutzen has proposed a method of artificially cooling the global climate by releasing particles of sulphur in the upper atmosphere, which would reflect sunlight and heat back into space. The controversial proposal is being taken seriously by scientists because Professor Crutzen has a proven track record in atmospheric research.A fleet of high-altitude balloons could be used to scatter the sulphur high overhead, or it could even be fired into the atmosphere using heavy artillery shells, said Professor Crutzen, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany.
The effect of scattering sulphate particles in the atmosphere would be to increase the reflectance, or "albedo", of the Earth, which should cause an overall cooling effect.
Professor Crutzen emphasizes that he'd prefer for industrial nations to cut their carbon dioxide production, but he doesn't say (as quoted in the article) why that approach would be preferable. He estimates the costs of lacing the upper atmosphere with sulfer at between $25 billion and $50 billion, but even at the top of that range his proposal would cost approximately 0.1% as much as implementing the Kyoto Protocol. (And the Kyoto Protocol itself admits that it would have an unmeasurable effect on temperature, even were it fully implemented.)
There are many such theories about how do do this type of thing. Little tiny man-made dust particles, little spheres that would reflect light back, etc., etc.
However, one surely must wonder if such an idea might be a bigger hazard than the problem we might or might not face. One approach suggests a small test first to see what effect the particulate would have as it fell back to earth.
Of greater concern would be whether, by altering the weather, we might end up weathering a new pattern that would be unexpected and catastrophic.
I think that climate change is inevitable, global warming or no global warming, regardless of what the causes are. The social, personal, and economic impact of climate change is what we have to focus on. What were once fertile areas may not be anymore.. and areas that were deserts may become garden spots. Those changes will surely shift the balance of power when it comes to who supplies the world's food and who buys it.. among other things that are likely to change.