When scientists present information on global warming or climate change, what they're trying to prove is how mankind is changing the Earth's atmosphere and causing shifts in the planet's weather system in response. Global warming is a proven trend though it remains uncertain how much is the result of humanity polluting Earth's atmosphere and how much is the result of normal, if previously unmeasured, climate change resulting in warmer average temperatures and what seems to be increasingly inconsistent weather patters with an elevated number of severe weather events per year.

Many groups, both governmental and independent, wish to invest in measures to help slow the increase of average temperatures. The Reilly report mentions two ways to combat global warming: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). Both are designed to limit how much heat is kept inside our atmosphere as CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas we create through electricity, transportation, and industry. CO2 keeps heat, typically in the form of light, from bouncing and escaping the atmosphere. SRM is designed to reflect more sunlight in order to keep that energy from entering the Earth's ecology.

My likely scenario - Let's begin by understanding the concept of terraforming was imagined as a process for changing another planet to offer the living conditions humans need to survive: a breathable atmosphere and habitable ecosystems to maintain that atmosphere. Are we reaching the point where we will need to begin terraforming our own planet just to maintain the living conditions we have evolved in for 200,000 years? It would seem so.

Each nation owns and controls their own airspace. But emissions are beginning to have consequences beyond national borders. Well documented instances of international impact include ozone depletion from CFCs, the radioactive spread from Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents, and even Chinese air pollution reaching into Japan and as far as the Western United States. Volcanoes alone can have far-reaching impacts, even shutting down local air travel.

So any changes a nation makes to their airspace can drift far and wide. If modern nations capable of using these systems put them to use, it will be at great risk. This could add another layer to already complex international discussions and even result in hostile actions.

What is your take: If a nation is using CDR, SRM or some other geoengineered solution to combat climate change and causing stress on a neighboring nation, is war an acceptable method of forcing them to desist?

----------

This topic is from an article by the Reilly center, who offered 10 issues  "for scientists, policy makers, journalists, and lay people to consider' as technological advances change our lives. It's a great opportunity for everyone to do just that, consider where we, as individuals - voting and purchasing individuals, stand on these issues. Here are my first thoughts on each with a plan for deeper consideration in future articles.

I am not including the full content of their article. You should read it for their viewpoints and additional resources.