Should the government fund research into geoengineering as a way to combat climate change?

Yes but not too much as we our main way to combat climate change should be through green energy if thats solar panels, hydro electricity and more

Invest in renewable energy, reduction of non-recyclables etc. Look after our planet and we won’t need to introduce further intrusions into its climate.

I think more research is needed but proof that we won't cause any more negative and/or detrimental damage

No, not at the moment. I support environmental action but it shouldn't be a priority over the economy and public services.

I would like to see a proven test on this before a commitment is made as this is our planets future and not to be taken lightly.

I would have to research more into what geoengineering means before fully supporting it or not. in theory I am 100% for research to combat climate change, as long as that in itself isn't causing more harm to the environment / species.

I think that this is worthy of investigation. But should not be acted upon until it is fully understood.

Yes, but they should also be funding more sustainable fuel sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels

Funding would be better spent on incentivising behaviours that we already know combat climate change (eg renewable energy)

there are more urgent priorities and we are not going to be able to technology our way out of climate change

research, but not experimentation until we have all the facts and can democratically decide if it’s something we should do.

No, the priority funding for climate change should go into building our renewable energy infrastructure.

Throwing British tax payer money at alleged ‘climate change’ is pointless and make 0% difference globally.

No, I don't understand geoengineering enough to have an opinion. I don't think enough research or public information is available on its short-term and long-term effects.

Not at the moment. I support environmental action but it shouldn't be a priority over the economy and public services

The government should fund research and development in Solar PV, Wind, Energy Storage, Nuclear fusion

Yes, as long as it’s not used to postpone other climate action initiatives aiming to reduce carbon emissions, for example.

Research should be heavily monitored at all stages to minimise potential risks, any practical test should go through a computer simulation first

Only if other, already proven mitigation techniques are not sufficient as splitting resources can impede progress.

Yes, but only if it doesn't postpone action that is proven and can be done now, i.e. reducing carbon emissions.

No, we need to learn redistribute natural resources and cut back on over-consumption to live in harmony with the planet

Yes, but only as a supplement to concentrating efforts on reducing emmissions and energy saving measures

Yes, research into cloud seeding, carbon capture (beyond trees) and Hydrocarbon manufacturing is a good idea. Even if CO2 is plant food and won't be devastating to the UK.

There are much better ways to fight climate change than geoengineering, such as energy efficiecy increase in insulation and use of renewable energy and reduction of car usage.

It should be researched as a last resort, we should focus on stopping climate change by reducing carbon emissions

No, as it is unfeasible to implement in a necessary timeframe to limit damage. We should be funding and nationalising renewable energy.

Climate change is caused by solar activity, so no good throwing money at it

Yes, if it does not harm the environment, biodiversity or ecosystems.

Yes, but it should be well researched and should not by any means have a downside. Changing the system of endless growth on a finite planet should be a first step, however.

No, this funding should instead be diverted into proven reduction methods such as transitioning away from fossil fuels

No, this would lead to coping mechanisms that would still perpetuate poor habits. Part of the bonus to removing fossil fuels is not just reducing co2, it's also cleaner air. Combating climate change in this manner would "greenlight" more use of fossil fuels and whilst we may not have such bad climate, we will still have smog and poor health etc.

No, research shows geoengineering is too impractical, expensive, and ineffective in combatting climate change. We should focus on mitigation and adaption instead

In some countries ie Iceland they already use goethermal power to heat homes if it is accessible and doable in these countries then it can be done elsewhere

Don’t know enough about it, but that decision should be made based on independent scientific advice, not party politics.

I think it should be trialled as anything that could help combat climate change could be good for the environment.

Yes, but only if there is substantial evidence that suggests the geoengineering does not have wholesale damaging consequences.

Not now, but possibly in the future after extensive research on the long term consequences have been conducted

This could prove unrealiable and create more serious problems for mankind and the environment than ever. much better to concentrate on reducing emmisisons etc.,

Again the claims have to be scientifically plausible and companies qualified! PPE

Only if they are tested and proved to be safe in a controlled environment

They should invest in this but also how the individual can better be ecological in daily life

No, we already know what we need to do, stop using plastic, gas and oil.

Yes but under thoroughly tested non profit purposes

Yes, but the focus should be on funding other methods of combatting climate change, such as reducing carbon emissions

No, we should focus on lowering emissions. This would encourage people/companies to produce more emissions as they feel that they can be removed and any damage done reversed.

We should be funding ways that will combat climate change in the long-term, not just the short-term.

Yes, As as long as extensive research into the technology is conducted and shows no negative consequences.

In your opinion, should humanity take risks to drastically fix the environment, or should we tread carefully with small steps?

Would knowing that geoengineering could affect countries differently change how you feel about it?

What role do you think future generations should play in deciding the solutions to climate change we use today?

How would you feel if a sudden change in technology could instantly cool the planet but had unknown risks?

Do you think humans should intervene in nature's processes to prevent further climate change, or should we focus solely on reducing emissions?

If you could control the weather for a day, what changes would you make and why?

How would you react if your favorite natural landscape was altered by a scientific solution meant to stabilize the climate?

Do you think altering Earth’s climate systems is ethical if it slows down global warming but disturbs ecosystems?

What would you say to someone who believes humans are responsible for fixing every problem we caused, even if the solutions may be dangerous?

How much do you trust science to solve big environmental problems like climate change, and why?