As mentioned earlier, I’m currently working on a piece on the topic of geoengineering, the field of study that proposes to proactively alter the Earth’s climate to counteract the effects of global warming. Geoengineering proposals include: fertilizing the ocean with iron to promote algae bloom growth to absorb CO2 and sequester that CO2 in depths of the oceans; injecting aerosols into the stratosphere or troposphere to increase the reflectivity of clouds and deflect solar radiation away from the planet; and even launching small mirrors into orbit around the Earth to deflect solar radiation back out into space.
Not surprisingly, the concept of humans tampering even more with the environment has made geoengineering a controversial, if not outright divisive issue, in atmospheric and environmental science communities. (Let’s not forget that human tampering with the environment got us into the global warming disaster in the first place.) A recent post on the invaluable blog Climate Progress (which has consistently doubted the merits of geoengineering) illustrated how contentious this kind of climate engineering is.
After the jump, I’ve included some excerpts from the exchange. Not to be missed for anyone interested in geoengineering.
In his first post, Wigley asserts that the “only realistic option for the future” is a “joint mitigation-geoengineering framework” that emphasizes both aggressive mitigation plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also encouraging research into various geoengineering proposals.
Caldeira follows Wigley by writing that “prudence demands that we consider what we might do if cuts in carbon dioxide emissions prove too little or too late to avoid unacceptable climate damage.”
He goes on to write:
A climate engineering research plan should be built around important questions rather than preconceived answers. It should anticipate and embrace innovation and recognize that a portfolio of divergent but defensible paths is most likely to reveal a successful path forward; we should be wary of assuming that we’ve already thought of the most promising approaches or the most important unintended consequences.
A climate engineering research plan must include both scientific and engineering components. Science is needed to address critical questions, among them: How effective would various climate engineering proposals be at achieving their climate goals? What unintended outcomes might result? How might these unintended outcomes affect both human and natural systems?
Engineering is needed both to build deployable systems and to keep the science focused on what’s technically feasible.
Leinen and Whaley, of Climos, argue that any geoengineering research effort should be a group one, including the World Climate Research Programme, the International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change and the Earth System Science Partnership, among several others.
Robock later stresses—as many others have—that geoengineering shouldn’t distract from emissions reductions efforts, and Caldeira wraps up the discussion by arguing that “the take-home message is, preliminary climate model simulations indicate that climate engineering may mitigate some but not all of the effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations.”
While we might prefer near-universal cooperation in carbon dioxide emissions reduction, it’s clearly time to plan what we will do if those emissions reductions don’t come quick enough or are not deep enough to prevent a climate crisis. The question isn’t whether we need to plan for such an eventuality, but what form that planning should take.
Browse Timeline
- « Stanley Fish and the future of higher education
- » Can merit pay boost Michigan’s ailing schools? Or, why I think Big Ten football could provide a clue to teacher merit pay
Comments ( 1 Comment )
This is known that money makes people disembarrass. But what to do if someone does not have cash? The only one way is to get the loans or secured loan.
Sharlene24Gonzales added these pithy words on
Aug 21 10 at
9:51 PM
