Geoengineering Steps Toward Reality—Once viewed skeptically, plans … gain traction

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/87/i47/html/8747gov1.html

November 23, 2009 | Volume 87, Number 47 | pp. 28 - 30

Geoengineering Steps Toward Reality

Once viewed skeptically, plans for intentional intervention in earth’s climate gain traction

Cheryl Hogue

…

These and other geoengineering schemes that might weaken the effects of human-induced global warming may seem like science fiction. In the past, they’ve been dismissed as far too risky or imprudent for mainstream scientists or policymakers to consider seriously.

Today, however, geoengineering proposals are starting to get lots of attention. Geoengineering increasingly seems to offer viable, science-backed options for averting the worst of predicted global warming. It doesn’t offer a silver bullet solution, however. The technologies involve trade-offs that are likely to generate powerful opponents, and their deployment may be influenced by international treaties over outer space and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.

Perhaps most responsible for bringing the idea of geoengineering into the public consciousness is the just-released best-selling book “SuperFreakonomics.” It offers quirky slants on issues from drunken driving (arguing that it’s better for the boozed up to get behind the wheel than walk short distances) to prostitution (not as profitable as in decades past because of the increase in casual sex). Written by economist http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/home.html">Steven D. Levitt and journalist http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/author/stephen-j-dubner/">Stephen J. Dubner, the book argues that geoengineering is an easier, less-expensive way to deal with climate change than transforming the world’s economy to low-carbon energy.

And now, scientists and policymakers alike are taking a hard, calculated look at intervening in vast natural systems that are essential to life. They point out, however, that for the past 150 or so years, societies have been involved in an unintentional geoengineering experiment by raising the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

…

[pscot]

1. We can't cap carbon emissions

But we can re-engineer the planet. This is nuts. Instead of fixing the problem, let's build a bridge to nowhere. Absolutely insane.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. OK, I’m with you…

How do we “fix the problem?”

By http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering">definition, essentially anything we intentionally do to “fix the problem” is a form GeoEngineering™…

[pscot]

3. In simplistic terms

the problem is too much carbon entering the atmosphere. Our activities are the source of the carbon. The answer is to stop pumping out carbon. That's not geo-engineering as I undestand it. What I understand by geo-engineering involves reflecting ballons at the edge of space, or extracting csrbon from the air and pumping it under ground. Geo-engineering involves heroic technological efforts with unpredictable results, as opposed to stopping what we're doing. We know what would happen if we quit generating carbon. The planet would get better, but our social and economic arrangements would sustain a huge hit. A lot of well off people, ourselves included, would be hurt bad. Pie in the sky is a lot more palatable than a big dose of bitter medicine right now. We know what we need to do, but we don't want to pay the price. We rationalize. We dance around the issue. We create electric cars and curly light bulbs. But it's a hustle. We're fooling ourselves because we can't bear the thought of doing what we need to do. Like a junky, we're always one fix away. We're gonna quit. Really we are. But not now. Not tomorrow. Not until we hit the bottom. In the meantime we need to drill one more well, knock the top off one more mountain, build one more coal-fired generator; until we finally embrace the spreading haze.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Right, stop pumping out carbon

OK, but here's the thing. For the last half million years or so, atmospheric CO₂ hasn’t ventured above 300ppm. We’re heading fast for 400ppm.

The last time CO₂ levels were this high, there were no ice caps.

Think about that for a bit…


Before we got to mucking around with the forests and such, the ecosystem was able to bring atmospheric CO₂ levels down at about the rate of 1ppm/millennium.

Think about that for a bit…


Currently, we’re increasing CO₂ levels about about the rate of 2ppm/year…

Think about that for a bit…


Looking back at that graph again, it appears that nature is able to increase CO₂ levels without our help at a pretty good clip. (Something about tipping points?) Methane is seeping out of the Arctic right now…

OK, check out the relative temperatures on the graph for when atmostpheric CO₂ levels were at just 300ppm…

If we stopped putting out carbon tomorrow, there’s already enough in the atmosphere to continue warming the planet another degree or so… (oh, and we won’t stop putting out carbon tomorrow… just being realistic here…)


See why I’m resigned to GeoEngineering™?

[pscot]

6. We're dumping more carbon into the atmosphere

than ever. Somebody around here noted that in the next 10 years we'll add as much atmospheric carbon as in all the previous years combined. I don't know how accurate that is, but it conveys the substantive truth of our situation. If we can't quit dumping ever increasing amounts of carbon into the air, what is the point of talking about actually reducing atmospheric carbon? Before we can start talking about physical therapy, we have to cure the patient. How can we do that when a large faction of the medical team thinks she's doing just fine and doesn't need any treatment at all, and some are profitting from the disease.

As you've probably guessed, I'm not very optimistic about our chances of finding our way outof the mess we've got ourselves into. We've created a royal fuckup, and we aren't facing up to it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Which is why I've pretty much given up on the notion of a social solution

A deus ex machina solution seems to be our only hope.

Fortunately, we’re kind of handy with machinis…

[joshcryer]

12. 17 years, not 10, but yeah, it's "very soon now."

Here's where I discuss it (please ignore the kristopher ranting): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=208318&mesg_id=208320

Exponential growth, it's a bitch. Only 7-8 years after that we will have released double, again. The EIA CO2 projections are alarming to say the least. And the EIA is extremely well respected in the energy community.



Note, that doesn't look too scary, does it? That's annual emissions, each year on that plot would be annual emissions of CO2 where it crosses the plot. So in 2006 we emitted around 28 billion tonnes of CO2. 2007, 29, 2008, 30, 2009, 31, 2010, 32, etc.

[joshcryer]

13. Actually, you are on to something, it may be closer to 10 years if you go by this:

I calculated the 17 year figure going by what that scientist said about 500 billion tonnes of CO2. If we have only released 329, then it is perfectly possible for us to double it in 9-10 years! I will have to find a more concrete number, but I think I will stick to that one for now.

[joshcryer]

5. The most promising technologies are aerosols. Sodium in the upper atmosphere.

Lace it, creates a nice reflective layer. Would have to be done round the clock and billions spent, but it's feasible.

[pscot]

7. Where there's a buck, there's a way

After all,we spend billions pumping carbon into the air around the clock. If someone can figure out how to make tropospheric aerosols pay, I'm sure we'll find a way to get it done.

[joshcryer]

9. And I'm sure the "solution" will be deemed adequate since the alternative is...

...a threat to the "free market."

[Nederland]

10. The problem is not too much carbon entering the atmosphere

The problem is rising temperatures and the effect that has. If we saw rising CO2 without rising temperatures, we wouldn't care.

[joshcryer]

11. If we saw rising CO2 without rising temperatures, CO2 would have a different IR absorption profile.

And our universe would be intrinsically different. :P

[Nederland]

19. The point is

CO2 is the cause, not the effect. If you can fix all the effects by other means, would you care? I don't think so.

[GliderGuider]

20. The point is

We can't fix all the effects by other means, so we do care.
For instance, I haven't seen a credible :think: geo-engineering solution to acidifying oceans. There just isn't enough baking soda in the world.

[The2ndWheel]

21. CO2 is a symptom

The cause is our want for more energy.

Those means with which we make the fixes, will obviously have their own consequences. So we're not really fixing anything, more moving things around to fit our needs, while living on a planet that redistributes the wealth. We're like the banks, while the rest of life are the lowly citizen. We're too big to fail, the rest of life are losing their homes.

[Nihil]

22. Good post.

> CO2 is a symptom
> The cause is our want for more energy.

I liked your "bank" analogy too:
> We're like the banks, while the rest of life are the lowly citizen.
> We're too big to fail, the rest of life are losing their homes.

Tragically accurate.
:-(

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. Well, fewer would care

Rising CO₂ has other problems associated with it. (i.e. ocean acidification.)

[pscot]

16. And if pigs had wings

they''d be roosting in the ham trees.

[Nihil]

14. Thank you. "Simplistic" or not, it is completely accurate.

> We know what would happen if we quit generating carbon.
> The planet would get better, but our social and economic
> arrangements would sustain a huge hit.
> ...
> We know what we need to do, but we don't want to pay the price.
> We rationalize. We dance around the issue.
> ...
> We're fooling ourselves because we can't bear the thought of doing
> what we need to do.

:toast: (though they should really be :-( rather than :-) drinking)

[GliderGuider]

17. Bringing my comment into the actual geo-engineering thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218230&mesg_id=218467

[pscot]

18. If the average temperature rises by 7 degrees C

Sticks won't get us deep enough. We may need some kind of technological breakthrough. I'm optimistic that human ingenuity will find a way. We don't call ourselves homo sapiens for nothing.