Geoengineering: wise to have a fallback option
Over at RealClimate they are talking about geoengineering: that’s the intentional manipulation of the global climatic system with the intent to counteract the effects of greenhouse gasses. Generally, it consists of efforts to either reflect more solar energy back into space or enhance the activity of biological carbon sinks. It has been mentioned here before.
The fundamental problem with all geoengineering schemes (from sulfite injections to plankton tubes to giant mirrors) is that they risk creating unexpected and negative side-effects. That said, it does seem intelligent to investigate them as a last resort. Nobody knows at what point critical physical and biological systems might tip into a cycle of self-reinforcing warming. Plausible examples include permafrost melting in the Arctic, releasing methane that heats the atmosphere still more, or the large-scale burning of tropical rainforests, both producing emissions and reducing the capacity of carbon sinks. If physical or biological systems became net emitters of greenhouse gasses, cutting human emissions to zero would not be sufficient to stop warming; it would simply continue until the planet reached a new equilibrium.
Given linear projections of climate change damages, we would probably be wisest to heed the Stern Review and spend adequately on mitigation. Given the danger of strong positive feedbacks, it makes sense to develop some fallback options for use in desperate times. It seems to me that various forms of geoengineering should be among them. Let us hope they never need to be used.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
The debate heats up
Is geoengineering worth a second look?
Posted by Maywa Montenegro at 6:26 PM on 24 Oct 2007
Read more about: climate | climate change mitigation
Tools: print | email | + digg | + del.icio.us | + reddit | + stumbleupon
Until recently, I was under the impression that scaling back carbon emissions 80% by 2050 might forestall the worst of effects of global warming. But with news like yesterday’s, with California up in flames, and with the Arctic ice cap shrunken to an all-time low, I’m beginning to wonder if we’ve already done so much damage that a technological fix might be necessary…
“This is not to say that we should give up trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ninety-nine percent of the $3 billion federal Climate Change Technology Program should still go toward developing climate-friendly energy systems. But 1 percent of that money could be put toward working out geoengineered climate fixes like sulfate particles in the atmosphere, and developing the understanding we need to ensure that they wouldn’t just make matters worse.”
October 30th, 2007 at 10:14 am
European Parliament votes to require car ads include warnings on CO2 emissions
The European Parliament recently voted that car ads must include warnings on vehicle CO2 emissions. If the rule successfully negotiates the rest of the European Union legislative process, 20 percent of a car ad would have to warn or educate consumers about the CO2 emitted from the vehicles advertised, as well as their fuel consumption. The 20 percent rule would apply to overall space in a print or internet ad and overall ad time for TV and radio commercials. “As you can imagine, it is not something that we would be particularly happy about,” says a spokesperson for an auto industry trade group. Ad companies are also not thrilled since the rule could cut into the $8.6 billion a year that automakers in Western Europe spend on car ads.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Industry’s plan for us
* A Sulfur Parasol to Blot Out the Sun
* A new word enters our vocabulary: Geo-engineering
* Fertilizing the Oceans with Iron
* Mirrors in Orbit
* Radiation Belt Remediation
* A Plan to Change the Earth’s Orbit
* The Biggest Geo-engineering Project: Carbon Sequestration
October 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Grand schemes for re-engineering the planet now have their own special name — geo-engineering. The word means, “global-scale interventions to alter the oceans and the atmosphere so fossil corporations can continue business as usual.”
October 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Give me one example of something analogous done on a small scale successfully, or don’t give geo-engineering any credit. Certainly, never use the word “wise” in conjunction with it.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
anon (the fourth one),
Geoengineering is like a backup parachute. You don’t want to use it and it is likely to give you a jolt and a hard landing. Still, it is a sensible thing to be investigating, given how little we understand possible feedbacks.
The danger is that studying it will foster the belief that we can easily fix climate change in a technical way, with no need for mitigation. While I recognize that risk, I also recognize the desirability of having some kind of measure that can be employed in a period of rapid and potentially catastrophic accelerating change.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
“I’ve been a Republican my whole life, but I’ll be doggoned if Al Gore isn’t right. Is it fair for you and me — this generation — to pollute for all the generations to come when we’re already seeing the effects — global warming, mercury, particulate matter?”
– newly minted environmentalist Sammy Prim
October 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Feds still failing on environment: commissioner
Updated Tue. Oct. 30 2007 2:13 PM ET
David Akin, CTV News
OTTAWA — Federal governments — be they Liberal or Conservative — continue to fail to make decisions and implement policies that would protect Canada’s natural environment, says the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“The danger is that studying it will foster the belief that we can easily fix climate change in a technical way”
The danger is that it will foster the complete lack of danger.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I don’t think you can ‘foster’ a lack of danger.
Do you mean that it will lead people to believe that there is no danger? I think that is pretty unlikely. By the time we are intentionally manipulating the climate system, virtually everyone will need to admit that some danger exists.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:20 am
Wildfires turning northern forests into carbon-dioxide sources
A group of U.S. researchers have found that wildfires — fuelled by climate change — may be turning boreal forests into sources of carbon dioxide.
The boreal forests — found in northern Canada, Alaska, Siberia, China, Scandinavia and elsewhere — make up the second largest type of forest in the world behind the tropical rainforest.
Scientists have historically believed that the boreal forests act as a carbon sink, as trees absorb carbon emissions and reduce them in the atmosphere.
But new research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, published in the Nov. 1 issue of the journal Nature, has found that the forests may be emitting more carbon than they are absorbing.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security
PETER SCHWARTZ & DOUG RANDALL / GBN Global Business Network October 2003
Imagining the Unthinkable
The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Ethical Issues Created by Geo-engineering Proposals - An Initial Analysis
I. Introduction to ethics of geo-engineering of the climate system
II. Ethical Questions Raised by These Proposals
* What is the ethical significance of the differences between inadvertent and intentional interference with the climate system?
* What ethical issues are raised by the scientific uncertainties in the deployment of these technologies?
* What ethical issues are raised by the need of someone to determine the heating goal for the entire planet, as would be the case in these geo-engineering proposals?
* Is further research on these proposals ethically warranted?
November 15th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Knowledge gaps pour cold water on sea fertilization
The parties to the London Convention, the international treaty governing ocean dumping, have agreed that large-scale ocean ‘fertilization’ is currently not justified given gaps in scientific knowledge.
Adding iron, phosphate or urea can stimulate plankton growth in nutrient-poor parts of the ocean — thereby sucking down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and potentially helping to combat climate change. But critics warn that the ecological impact is poorly understood, and at its meeting in London last week, the convention endorsed concerns issued in June by its scientific advisory group.
Environmentalists last week also raised concerns over an Australian company’s plan to test its carbon-sequestration technology in Philippine waters. Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC) of Pyrmont, New South Wales, is currently in discussions with Philippine authorities over dumping 500 tonnes of dissolved urea, a nitrogen-based fertilizer, in the Sulu Sea between Borneo and the Philippines.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Nature 450, 491-492 (22 November 2007) | doi:10.1038/450491a; Published online 21 November 2007
Carbon cycle: Marine manipulations
Kevin R. Arrigo
The effect of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on carbon uptake in and export from the upper ocean is one of the big questions in environmental science. But it can be tackled experimentally.
November 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
If actually cutting greenhouse gas emissions isn’t going very well (largely due to incessant foot dragging by politicians), how about coming up with some new technology or chemical to put up into the atmosphere to help neutralize global warming?
Recently, 50 respected climate, energy, and economics researchers met at Cambridge University to discuss that very question. The process is called “geoengineering” and it basically involves tinkering with the planet’s climate to find alternate ways to prevent the very worst effects of runaway global warming.
In theory, geoengineering is certainly possible. After all, that’s what we’ve unintentionally been doing for decades with gases like carbon dioxide, that cause global warming. And “aerosols” or soot put in the atmosphere from airplanes, ships, factories and other sources has also been shown to affect the climate. Sometimes, these tiny particles in the air absorb heat and hold it closer to the earth, adding to the overall warming trend. Other times, the particles can cause localized cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space. Indian researchers, for example, now say that air pollution in India has reduced the amount of sunlight the country receives by five per cent over the past 20 years.
But geoengineering in this context specifically refers to intentionally tinkering with the atmosphere - in this case to help mask the effects of our other unintentional tinkering. Would it work? Should we even talk about it?
According to those researchers at the Cambridge meeting, the answer to the second question is a qualified “yes.” In an article in the journal Science, they point out that while they worry that the public and politicians might gravitate towards these technical solutions, they feel that global warming is too dangerous to avoid discussing all available options. Even if they are a last resort.
Huge knowledge gaps exist in geoengineering solutions. One idea involves seeding the oceans with iron or phosphate to help stimulate the growth of plankton, which would theoretically help remove carbon from the atmosphere. However, no one knows what else it would do or if it would work. In fact, parties to the London Convention, an international treaty governing ocean pollution, recently agreed that such large-scale ocean seeding is not justified given gaps in scientific knowledge.
Another idea involves spraying sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, mimicking the effect of large-scale volcanic eruptions. Similar to what is happening in India, the theory is that this layer of pollution high in the atmosphere would reflect some sunlight away from the earth and act as a buffer against the heating effect of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.
For each theory, the conference participants pointed out gaps and concerns - which ranged from the practical (cost and technical ability) to potentially devastating ecological consequences that are, by and large, unpredictable. To experiment with the atmosphere is to experiment with life as we know it. After all, this isn’t a test tube. This is all the known life in the universe - and it includes us.
The fact that some researchers are even willing to discuss such radical and dangerous methods to slow global warming should be a wake-up call to world leaders meeting at the international climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia next month. If serious scientists are actually contemplating such drastic measures, it ought to show just how dire the situation has become.
What is desperately needed, the researchers say, is what we have yet to see - genuine efforts to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. That’s why this next climate conference is so important, fresh on the heels of the IPCC co-winning the Nobel Peace Prize. This is an opportunity to look beyond Kyoto to the next level of engagement and agree to the substantial greenhouse gas reduction targets that scientists say we need if we are to avoid the worst of global warming.
Cooperation from the United States and China, as the world’s largest total greenhouse gas emitters, is obviously critical to reducing global greenhouse pollution. But countries like Canada could play an important role if we lead rather than follow and step up, rather than cower behind our big brother. It isn’t good enough to just hope we don’t have to attempt the unthinkable. We have to actually take serious steps to prevent it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
With cracks and holes in the Greenland ice sheet, we may well have to ‘geo-engineer’ the climate
THOMAS HOMER-DIXON
From Saturday’s Globe and Mail
December 1, 2007 at 12:00 AM EST
“In light of these two trends, climate scientists are now beginning to discuss a topic that only two years ago many fervently hoped they’d never have to discuss: geoengineering, or the intentional human modification of the planet’s climate to arrest or slow global warming. Geoengineering would involve, for example, putting sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere or putting mirrors into space to try to block a fraction of incoming solar radiation.
An idea no longer at the margins
Today the topic is at the margins of the public-policy dialogue about climate change, but I expect it will be at the centre of public discussion within five years. In 10 years, we will see demands from some segments of the public and many opinion leaders that we carry out geoengineering. And we’ll probably start doing it within 20 years, likely when it becomes apparent that the Greenland ice sheet is starting to collapse.
We will do it, because by then we’ll be experiencing major socio-economic impacts of climate change — for instance, shortfalls in global food supply, as droughts and heat waves affect grain-growing regions. At that point, we will wonder about what kind of world we’ve created for our children and grandchildren. We’ll recognize that we’re facing an emergency unlike anything humankind has ever faced before, and we will demand that our leaders and experts do something, anything, to stop the slide.”
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
So-called “geo-engineering” is another area of research that deserves attention, but will not receive it from the private sector. Some sunlight reaching the earth is absorbed, and some is reflected away. Likewise, some volcanic eruptions, namely those that produce lots of sulfur, can cool the earth significantly. Indeed, it is estimated that the sulfur currently in the atmosphere, mainly from combustion of coal and oil, may be masking a significant part of the expected greenhouse effect.
So it would make sense to conduct small, reversible experiments to determine what substances might be put at what altitude to reflect incoming energy, and to include the results in global climate models to ascertain where they would be most effective and benign. Needless to say, this is not a task
March 21st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Time on geo-engineering: What are they thinking? Part 1
Messing with nature more won’t fix the messes we’ve already made
April 11th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
David Keith: A surprising idea for “solving” climate change
May 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 1 May 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.42
Research is responsibility
Olive Heffernan
Arguably, what should be of greater concern is the prospect that not a single one of the myriad schemes would actually work in reality. To rely on geoengineering as a solution to climate change would be massively irresponsible, akin to using gambling as a way to get out of debt, and with much higher stakes. But it would be equally irresponsible to avoid garnering all the knowledge we can about whether it is a feasible option.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Lethal injections
Science: Geo-engineering scheme damages the ozone layer
The large burden of sulfate aerosols injected into the stratosphere by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 cooled Earth and enhanced the destruction of polar ozone in the subsequent few years. The continuous injection of sulfur into the stratosphere has been suggested as a “geoengineering” scheme to counteract global warming. We use an empirical relationship between ozone depletion and chlorine activation to estimate how this approach might influence polar ozone. An injection of sulfur large enough to compensate for surface warming caused by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 would strongly increase the extent of Arctic ozone depletion during the present century for cold winters and would cause a considerable delay, between 30 and 70 years, in the expected recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea
Carbon dioxide emissions are rising so fast that some scientists are seriously considering putting Earth on life support as a last resort. But is this cure worse than the disease?
By Alan robock