Think before you act

Is it worth trying technological ways to stop global warming, or will the damage from the action be greater than its benefit? And also: what are the consequences of the Sea Canal on Eilat and the Dead Sea

Recently, two proposals have been put forward to stop/reduce global warming. We were informed of the possibility of stopping global warming by dispersing hydrogen-sulfur particles in the upper atmosphere, these particles will act as tiny mirrors and return the sun's energy to space... By this, the penetration of solar energy before the surface of the earth will decrease, a reduction that will constitute a recession of global warming . The proposal does not detail how the hydrogen-sulphide particles will be dispersed and what will prevent them from reaching the ground.

Pictured above is a tiny marine creature -salps - (grown like a peanut) that eats microscopic algae/plants (phytoplankton). The plants absorb carbon dioxide, the "salaf" eats the plant and excretes dung that sinks to the bottom of the sea and thus removes the carbon from the environmental system. In other words, the "Salaf" works to mitigate global warming.

Therefore, researchers have proposed to encourage the population of the "Salaf" by increasing the amount of food... They propose to do this with the help of pumps that will rise to the upper level of cold water from the depth, in the depth of nutrients that by pumping them to the upper level will enrich the seas with food, richness in food will cause the proliferation of algae and phytoplankton, these They will absorb more carbon and be eaten by the "Self" who will remove the carbon dioxide from the system.

Two proposals, two ideas that on the face of it seem promising and interesting, but in both cases you should be very careful. In the first case, sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are one of the causes of acid rain, so it would be correct to check and compare the advantages against the disadvantages. In the second case... to raise cold water rich in nutrients, huge pumps will be operated, what will be the effect on living/food systems, following a change in food levels (and temperature)?

What will be the energy cost of running the pumps and how many greenhouse gases will be added to the system because of running the pumps? What will be the climatic effect of amounts of cold water that will come into contact with the air?

In both cases, the intention of the proponents/researchers is a gross interference in the natural order to neutralize/repair damages caused by a gross interference in the natural order. Isn't it more correct to stop the initial intervention?

On other days I would bring up the two ideas without further reference, this time they serve as an opening for me to warn about the intention of local "development": these days news is published on an environmental - local - important issue
Out of nowhere, the Negev Development Minister pushed, the Infrastructure Minister pushed, and now a monstrous plan to mine the "Sea Canal" is unfolding and progressing...

Years ago the plan was rolled out and even a failed attempt was made to build a canal between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, failed because it became clear that there was no economic viability... So the intention was mainly economic (electricity) and tourism (lakes on the way). No environmental surveys were done, but "grandiose" development plans were published that turned out to be a blown balloon, fortunately for our environment, the plan was not realized. Today the probability of realization exists and with it the danger.

Did someone forget to dry the patient? The only good thing that the patient's disruption caused was the establishment of the Society for the Protection of Nature. The same company whose voice for some reason cannot be heard in response to the megalomaniacal statements of various "developers".

The purpose of the "Sea Canal" is to repair damage caused mainly by two development projects: one: the transportation of Jordan water throughout the country, the other: the Dead Sea projects, in both cases - a change in the order of Genesis.
Therefore: when it becomes clear that the change is causing damage, what is simpler than to stop, neutralize the change, let the Jordan flow into the Dead Sea and reduce the potash production activity. Instead of Jordan water, they will use purified wastewater and desalinated water. Instead of potash? The time has come for those who "extorted" the environment to pay their debt to society and the environment.

It is possible that after a comprehensive environmental survey it will turn out that there is no place for my protest/concern... but until a survey is carried out I suggest thinking about how many problems the "Talat-Yams" will cause: Eilat is known as a hot but dry city, until about thirty years ago the average air humidity level in Eilat was 10 %. Following the gardening and mainly because of the salt ponds north of the city, the humidity level rose to 20%.... And it's still relatively dry, how will a water canal from the northeast affect the relative dryness? How will the canal affect the climate in the Arava?
The Gulf of Eilat is a "dead end" - with no way out, a situation that dictates the directions of the local currents, opening a northern outlet will change the flow systems in the gulf, what will such a change cause and how will it affect the flora and fauna in the gulf?
- Eilat and the Arava settlements receive water (for drinking and irrigation) from a local water level (aquifer) in the Arava, the water is brackish in the south and less brackish in the north, a canal that will carry salty water from the sea above the Arava aquifer will endanger the aquifer, the settlements, the agricultural fields and all the flora and fauna systems in nature . In addition, it is important to remember that the canal is planned on an active geological fault line. - The planners are talking about a hydro-electric station that will provide electricity, electricity with the help of which water will be desalinated to the settlements in the vicinity... that is, at least part of the canal water will be desalinated, which means that the concentration of salts in the water that will reach the Dead Sea will be higher than 4.5%, how will this affect the chemical composition of the Dead Sea water ? - To what extent did it rise financially? It was correct to check the cost of establishing desalination facilities, for desalination of a billion cubic meters of water per year (an amount similar to the flow of the Jordan to the Dead Sea), compared to the expected cost of the canal - (about 5 billion dollars). The test must be done with a long-term vision, when any development must be sustainable.

Fortunately for us (perhaps) most of the funding for the project will come from the World Bank, the bank does not release funding without receiving many surveys including an environmental survey, therefore it can be hoped that an environmental survey will show the risks and if the project is carried out they will take all precautions to prevent an environmental disaster. We will remember the patient!