Tilbake til ISE IV English (UK) – Interactive task

Geoengineering as Climate Insurance

Engelsk snakker scenario

Alfie

A relaxed British English speaker with an easy, informal style.

31 years · male

Practise talking about "Geoengineering as Climate Insurance" with Alfie, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your ISE IV English – Interactive task speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

Samtale

I am going to give you a situation. Scientists propose researching solar geoengineering as emergency climate insurance. You need to ask questions and then tell me what you think should happen. What do you need to know first?

Godt svar:

I would need to know where the power sits before giving a view. In this case, scientists propose researching solar geoengineering as emergency climate insurance. I would ask who benefits immediately, who bears the risk if the judgement is wrong, and whether affected people can appeal or demand reasons. Without those answers, the proposal may sound efficient while concealing the risk of future risk being shifted onto people without a voice now.

The main options are internationally governed research now or avoid research that may reduce pressure to cut emissions. What assumption behind these options would you challenge?

Godt svar:

The assumption I would question is that internationally governed research now and avoid research that may reduce pressure to cut emissions are the only realistic moral choices. They may be useful starting points, but the real decision may require a narrower pilot, a stronger appeal route or a different definition of success. Otherwise we may choose between two polished versions of the same blind spot.

Suppose someone says your approach is too cautious and that urgent action is needed. How would you respond?

Godt svar:

I would not dismiss that objection, because delay can also be harmful. I would allow action where the current harm is clear, but I would limit scale, publish reasons and set a review date. That responds to pressure without pretending the risk has disappeared, especially when the policy could lead to the risk of future risk being shifted onto people without a voice now.

What long-term consequence worries you most if this decision is handled badly?

Godt svar:

The long-term risk that worries me most is institutional habit. Once organisations build procedures around a decision, reversing it becomes expensive, embarrassing and politically difficult. In geoengineering as climate insurance, the risk of future risk being shifted onto people without a voice now could start to feel normal rather than exceptional, which is more damaging than a single poor decision.

Where should responsibility sit: individuals, institutions, markets or government?

Godt svar:

I would not put responsibility in one place. Government should set enforceable limits, institutions should explain and monitor decisions, and private actors should not profit from risks they do not carry. Individuals need voice, but voice is not a substitute for power or an appeal mechanism. For geoengineering as climate insurance, that qualification keeps the answer tied to the actual case.

After hearing the objections, what final position would you take?

Godt svar:

After hearing the objections, I would support only a reversible version. I would not give a pure yes or no answer. I would allow the least irreversible action that addresses the immediate harm, but only with published reasons, independent review and a real route for people to challenge outcomes that affect them. For geoengineering as climate insurance, that qualification keeps the answer tied to the actual case.