Time Magazine: Can Geoengineering Help Slow Global Warming?

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916965,00.html

Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2009

Can Geoengineering Help Slow Global Warming?

By Bryan Walsh

As we pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we're doing more than warming the planet and scrambling the climate. We're also conducting what climatologist James Hansen has called a "vast uncontrolled experiment." In effect, we're on our way to engineering a world very different from the one we were handed. Belatedly, we're trying to turn off the carbon spigot, hoping that by incrementally reducing the emissions we've spent a couple centuries pouring into the air we can stop the climate slide before it's too late.

But what if we can't do that? What if it turns out that slashing carbon emissions enough to make a difference — and it seems that means cutting output at least in half by mid-century — is economically and politically impossible? Do we need a Plan B? (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1863706,00.html">See the top 10 green ideas of 2008.)

A small but growing band of researchers are beginning to say yes. If we geoengineered the Earth into a mess with our uncontrolled appetite for fossil fuels, maybe we have to geoengineer our way out of it — in effect, directly cooling the planet via a controlled experiment to counteract our uncontrolled one. Indeed, according to a just-published paper for the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate — a think tank studying inexpensive solutions to climate change — geoengineering might not only be a good way to bring rising temperatures under short-term control while we wait for the longer term fix of cutting carbon emissions to take hold, it might be the only way.

"The potential benefits of geoengineering are really very large," says Lee Lane, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a co-author of the paper.

…

[Nihil]

1. Ho-hum ...

> "The potential benefits of geoengineering are really very large,"
> says Lee Lane, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and
> a co-author of the paper.

That'll be the same AEI as this one?

> AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of
> the second Bush administration's public policy. More than twenty AEI
> scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post
> or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.
> Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI
> are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior
> fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities
> Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker
> Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; ... former deputy secretary of
> defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar.


Now why is it that if the above people support "the technology whose name
cannot be spoken" then it is a reason to bring down all manner of flames
upon the poster but if the same people support "let's fuck the planet up
once and for all" schemes then it is met with a silence that - in this
context - implies a form of tacit support?

:shrug:

[kristopher]

2. Well...

It is identified in the header as an article on geo-engineering in Time magazine and it has no recs. Considering that the general sentiment regarding the policy choice of whether to focus on mitigation or to focus on stopping emissions leans VERY HEAVILY in favor of stopping emissions, I'd say that most people probably didn't even bother to open the thread. I didn't until you popped it back to the top. When I did open it and scanned the blurb, the first thing to jump out at me was the AEI cite. I almost closed it on the spot but elected to read (and answer) your comment first.

So, speaking just for myself, I think you need to look a bit harder for something to excite you into a righteous state of manufactured poutrage.

[Nihil]

3. Well, well ...

> It is identified in the header as an article on geo-engineering in
> Time magazine ...

That's why I thought I'd see what they were saying.

> Considering that the general sentiment regarding the policy choice of
> whether to focus on mitigation or to focus on stopping emissions leans
> VERY HEAVILY in favor of stopping emissions, I'd say that most people
> probably didn't even bother to open the thread.

That's not been the case in past threads on geo-engineering (some of which
were quite "active" at the time) but if that is the explanation then I am
happy as I too favour "stopping emissions" over "mitigation".

> I didn't until you popped it back to the top.

I've been going through a backlog of posts after returning from a short
break so sorry if this pings some "old" posts up again.

> So, speaking just for myself, I think you need to look a bit harder for
> something to excite you into a righteous state of manufactured poutrage.

Until then, I was thinking this was a friendly & helpful reply but at
least I now know that no-one's taken over your DU account!
:P

[kristopher]

4. Come on...

You mean that that swipe accusing people who don't support nuclear of gobbling down AEI bullshit was well intentioned? I really do try to respond to people in kind.

[Nihil]

6. "Well intentioned"?

I merely pointed out the discrepancy in response to articles using "AEI sourced"
articles to support "nuclear" actions and those who use the same source to support
planet-changing (IMO -damaging) schemes ...

I think the AEI are a bad source to support *anything*.

I don't care if the "anything" is something I like or if it is something I don't
like (or even if it is something I actively dislike). I don't view the "support
AEI arguments if I like them" attitude to be beneficial.

:shrug:

I don't agree with the "nuclear uber alles" approach any more than I agree with
the wind/solar/hydro "uber alles" view. I believe in the appropriate response to
the appropriate problem - sometimes wind, sometimes solar, sometimes a combination
and, yes, sometimes nuclear - but most definitely not the "something will allow
us to carry on in the same way as before" attitude.

I believe (from your previous posts) that you agree with the latter attitude.
Please don't spoil your approach by supporting the "devil" simply because
it happens to agree with you on the odd occasion.

[kristopher]

9. You've misread me

Limiting myself to a simple response I'll just say that I concur with your characterization of yourself. I too see the sense in retaining the size of our current fleet of reactors and if we had unlimited resources to through at our environmental problems I would include a build out of all non-carbon generating technologies as I feel that climate change trumps the concerns associated with nuclear. However, the reality is that funds are scarce and 6 years of intense academic study have convinced me that crafting the most efficient (as used in econ) response to the problem requires allocating as much public funding as possible to the most productive technologies. That doesn't mean opposition to the losing technologies so much as it means prioritization of resources. Likewise as part of evaluating our possible responses to climate change I try to approach mitigation technologies with an open mind. I don't expect to have to seed the oceans with iron, but in the same way I would support nuclear at this point if the funds were unlimited so I can see the possibility that what they might call "heroic measures" in the medical field, might be the course we elect to pursue some day.

If it seems like I "oppose" nuclear power that is because I don't hesitate to speak out against the flood of misinformation from some proponents of nuclear power and some other technologies. One thing I didn't expect when I started studying the energy/climate change issues was the near tribal loyalty that people develop as they spend years advocating for a technology that something led them to believe in. Rarely is that something a dispassionate, thorough and rational analysis of their preferred technology in relation to the other technologies available to deal with our problems.

Of course the first thought that should elicit in you would be that I should hold up a mirror and look into it. However, I suspect my case is the oddity since I haven't had nor do I know have a technology that I have emotionally adopted. I may some day, but with the pace of change I don't expect to have time to become married to something like next generation lithium batteries before they are supplanted by something better such as a fully functioning super capacitor.

I came to the issue a complete agnostic on the global problems associated with energy, instead I was focused on the nature of our relationship with energy as force shaping social, cultural and individual values, beliefs and behaviors. I subscribe to the theory of culture proposed by Marvin Harris and was exploring life at a much different level than you now see. Part of this epistemological approach involves seeing human culture as more than just ideas, but as an actual expression of an adaptive organism.

What this means practically to your post is that instead of believing "something will allow us to carry on in the same way as before" I tend to believe that we will shape ourselves more than most creatures to the environmental resources and forces that constrain us. I don't view us as apart from nature but rather as a dynamic force of nature. We will most probably "carry on" for a long time yet to come; however even if things go swimmingly, I don't believe it will be "the same way as before" for we are constantly evolving and constantly adapting in a lightening fast evolutionary cultural mode.

So much for the limited simple reply I intended. Goodnite.

[Nihil]

10. Thank you for the explanation.

Yes, I had somewhat misread you so thanks for the clarification.

[Nederland]

5. Interesting

I noticed that the criticism at the end of the article did not address the idea of putting mirrors in orbit. Perhaps that idea has no downside other than extravagant cost...

[NNadir]

7. I personally believe we should tow the Earth to another orbit if its good for our cars.

"We" just can't live without our cars. That's just a FACT!!!!!!!

I mean, how would we get to Walmart to buy our copy of Amory Lovins' "Natural Capitalism" books.

What then?

It is obvious that we need to tow the earth to another orbit. Otherwise we face a terrible risk of some farmer getting exposed to a beta particle, or worse an alpha particle, in 2584.

[Fotoware58]

8. Finger pointing

There are exceedingly few people in this world who are blameless. Many self-righteous, but woefully under-educated people add to global warming in ways they choose to disregard. I also cannot claim a lifestyle that doesn't add to the problem but, at least I admit to not always recycling and driving a car. However, allowing the ancient carbon in trees to be released is excessively bad for our atmosphere, providing mega-tons of GHG's, as well as destroying ecosystems.

It DOES look like some of those AEI folks are looking to make big money off these crazy geo-engineering schemes. Hey, if Al Gore can profit, why can't the AEI people do the same thing?!?

(If only I could make money off wildfires....Hmmmm, how much does a water tender cost??....They also get paid to watch fires burn!)

[wtmusic]

11. Geologists, with no ties whatsoever to the petroleum industry, will be

our saviors.

Halle-freaking-lujah.