What does the author mean by saying a technology held in reserve might make the case for cutting emissions 'more urgent, not less'?
Proposals to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight, such as releasing reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, are often attacked as dangerous distractions. The danger is real: the intervention could change rainfall patterns, and it would have to be maintained for decades or the warming it had masked would return quickly. The distraction charge is harder to assess. Some argue that the mere existence of an emergency option will reduce the pressure to cut emissions. But others note that people who take out insurance do not stop locking their doors. It is at least conceivable that a technology held in reserve could make the case for cutting emissions more urgent, not less, by making the alternative more vivid. The matter cannot be settled by assertion, only by research into how people actually respond.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. That a vivid picture of what the emergency option involves might alarm people into acting sooner
- Step 1: The author says it could make the alternative more vivid.
- Step 2: A frightening alternative could strengthen the case for avoiding it by cutting emissions.
Answer
That a vivid picture of what the emergency option involves might alarm people into acting sooner.
Why not the others: The author suggests the technology might make cuts more urgent, which rules out unnecessary cuts, abandonment, indifference and immediate use.
Practise more Environment and technology.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.