Our Opinion: Survival plan: Inject sulfur pollution into the air?

Is solar radiation management a scientific scare tactic or potential climate control option?

Reaction to the concept is likely to be as divisive as climate change itself, but expect to hear more about solar radiation management, climate intervention and geoengineering.

That's because those controversial ideas - previously relegated to the scientific fringes - have been included, albeit cautiously, in a recent, two-volume report by the National Academy of Science. (For more on this issue, see "Backup plans for Earth" elsewhere on this page.)

Like most of our readers, we are neither meteorologists nor climate scientists, but we have followed the climate change issue and are keenly aware that it remains polarizing.

We believe remaining open-minded is necessary, and it would be foolhardy, and potentially dangerous, to reject the possibility of man-made climate change. We also understand the economic realities of the world's reliance on fossil fuels will make change slow and cumbersome, even if it enjoyed widespread acceptance.

We fear the new report, instead of fostering open-mindedness, may further divide climate change adherents and opponents.

Much will depend on the reaction to comments by Marcia McNutt, committee chairman and editor of the journal Science. She said the public should read this report "and say, "This is downright scary.' And they should say, "If this is our Hail Mary, what a scary, scary place we are in.'"

Close-minded skeptics likely will hear those comments as another "the end is near" scare tactic.

We hear a certain urgency - a call to consider Plan B if all else fails.

Among possible options suggested in the report is solar radiation management, which involves injecting sulfur pollution high in the air to reflect the sun's heat.

An Associated Press report said the procedure "could be a relatively cheap, effective and quick way to cool the planet by mimicking the natural effects on climate of large volcanic eruptions, but scientists concede there could be dramatic and dangerous side effects that they don't know about."

McNutt said "small scale outdoor tests might be allowed, but it wouldn't just be in the hands of scientists to decide what's allowable and what's not allowable. Civil society needs to engage in these discussions where the line is to be drawn."

If it's time to discuss where to draw the line on preserving the planet, perhaps some healthy fear is in order.