Even if the 2 °C goal is attained, however, society will still need to adapt to the inevitable changes anticipated over the next three to four decades (Brasseur et al., 2013). The lifespan of CO₂ in the Earth system is very extensive and, consequently, even instantaneous reductions in CO₂ emissions, which are essential when taking into account long-term climate change, will have no significant effect on the climate within the coming decades. The German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) (2009), illustrated how emissions would be distributed among several nations. For example in the case of Germany which represents 1.2 % of the world's population, should exceed no more than nine Gt CO₂. By comparing this data it showed how difficult it …show more content…
According to The Royal Society (2009), geoengineering should be distinguished from other forms of mitigation, like forests protection or decreasing CO2 emissions; the lies of which do not encompass the global scale mediation in the climate.
It is a widely respected thought of view, that those who approve of geoengineering do not oppose other mitigation tactics, but rather recognize that these efforts may not be sufficient. Recognizing the outlook of a possibly disastrous and catastrophic climate change, geoengineering is seen by some as the lesser of two evils (Crutzen, 2006). While others like Elliot (2010) still believe specific geoengineering proposals should not be implemented until research on geoengineering can provide sufficient evidence of their safety, feasibility, and efficacy. In comparison to mitigation and adaptation, many came to the decision that geoengineering should fall within its own category. Figure 2 illustrates the categorization of geoengineering into its own group in relation to different responses to climate change with mitigation and