This is another, somewhat modified version of the Holdren interview. You can imagine this playing out like the banking crisis. Everything's fine. We fixed Fannie and Freddie. Everything's fine. We took care of Bear Stearns. Everything's fine. Lehmann was too far gone to save. We fixed the other banks. Everything's fine. Oh s---!
So while the administration talks last resort, I still advocate the research to enable geoengineering to be used as a preventative and not remediative treatment. Something you can take to the bank. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090408/ap_on_sc/sci_obama_science_adviser Obama looking at cooling air to fight warming By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer Wed Apr 8, 7:38 pm ET WASHINGTON - Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming - a radical idea once dismissed out of hand - is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's new science adviser said Wednesday. That's because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month. The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Using such an experimental measure is only being thought of as a last resort, Holdren said. "It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table." His concern is that the United States and other nations won't slow global warming fast enough and that several "tipping points" could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said. Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog." He and many experts believe that warming of a few degrees more would lead to disastrous drought conditions and food shortages in some regions, rising seas and more powerful coastal storms in others. At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions. "We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge." Holdren said discussions include Cabinet officials and heads of sub-Cabinet level agencies, such as NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency. The 65-year-old physicist is far from alone in taking geoengineering seriously. The National Academy of Sciences is making it the subject of the first workshop in its new climate challenges program for policymakers, scientists and the public. The British Parliament has also discussed the idea. At an international meeting of climate scientists last month in Copenhagen, 15 talks dealt with different aspects of geoengineering. The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment." Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically. Holdren, a 1981 winner of a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant, outlined these possible geoengineering options: . Shooting sulfur particles (like those produced by power plants and volcanoes, for example) into the upper atmosphere, an idea that gained steam when it was proposed by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2006. It would be "basically mimicking the effect of volcanoes in screening out the incoming sunlight," Holdren said. . Creating artificial "trees" - giant towers that suck carbon dioxide out of the air and store it. The first approach would "try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," Holdren said. But he said there could be grave side effects. Studies suggest that might include eating away a large chunk of the ozone layer above the poles and causing the Mediterranean and the Mideast to be much drier. And those are just the predicted problems. Scientists say they worry about side effects that they don't anticipate. While the idea could strike some people as too risky, the Obama administration could get unusual support on the idea from groups that have often denied the harm of global warming in the past. The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has its own geoengineering project, saying it could be "feasible and cost-effective." And Cato Institute scholar Jerry Taylor said Wednesday: "Very few people would rule out geoengineering on its face." Holdren didn't spell out under what circumstances such extreme measures might ever be called for. And he emphasized they are not something to rely on. "It would be preferable by far," he said, "to solve this problem by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases." Yet there is already significant opposition building to the House Democratic leaders' bill aimed at achieving President Barack Obama's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Holdren said temperatures should be kept from rising more than 3.6 degrees. To get there, he said the U.S. and other industrial nations have to begin permanent dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide pollution by 2015, with developing countries following suit within a decade. Those efforts are racing against three tipping points he cited: Earth could be as close as six years away from the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, he said, and that has the potential of altering the climate in unforeseen ways. Other elements that could dramatically speed up climate change include the release of frozen methane from thawing permafrost in Siberia, and more and bigger wildfires worldwide. The trouble is that no one knows when these things are coming, he said. Holdren also addressed other topics during the interview: . The U.S. anti-ballistic missile program is not ready to work and shouldn't be used unless it is 100 percent effective. The system, which would be used to shoot down missiles from countries like North Korea or Iran "needs to be essentially perfect ... that's going to be hard to achieve." . Holdren said NASA needs some changes. He said the Bush administration's plan to return astronauts to the moon was underfunded so money was taken from science and aeronautics. Those areas, including climate change research, were "decimated," he said. The administration will "rebalance NASA's programs so that we have in space exploration, a suitable mix of manned activities and robotic activities," Holdren said. Doing that "will only get under way in earnest when a new administrator is in place." Holdren, who advises the president on such decisions, said he hopes Obama will pick a new NASA boss soon. ___ ----- Original Message ----- From: Alvia Gaskill To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] ; geoengineering Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews;_ylt=AgWN.UaI3bpVBdthMQx.sxJdRJ54;_ylu=X3oDMTE2YnQ3c24wBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItcmlnaHQEc2xrA3ZpZC11bi1saW5r?ch=4226722&cl=12882507&lang=en Here is part of the actual video of the interview with Holdren by Seth Borenstein. In it, he refers to injecting reflective particles into low Earth orbit as one of the most discussed geoengineering ideas. It is not. He does seem to be aware of some of the generic arguments for and against SRM. He says SRM would be too expensive and would interfere with spacecraft. The other article I posted indicates he has a crude and possibly inaccurate understanding of aerosol formation and effectiveness. I don't expect all people at the senior policy level to be conversant with all aspects of these technologies, but his mixing up and confusion of these ideas concerns me, especially given the low level of understanding of journalists, leading to a "blind-leading-the-blind" scenario when the time comes to explain this to the public. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Keith To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] ; geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:22 PM Subject: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table I think this comment is (a) factually incorrect and (b) unhelpful. Holdren has know about this and paid attention for some time, certainly since before we held the 2007 Harvard meeting. I talked with him in the fall on this topic. I don't think it's fair to say that he was "backed into a corner". Further, I can think of several senior folks in DC who take geoengineering seriously. (Heck, I am there twice in the next few weeks on the topic.) I think over-statements like this do more harm than good. -David ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Schnare Sent: April 8, 2009 8:37 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table Holdren, unlike folks in the environmental advocacy community, can be backed into a corner. Holdren is not stupid and he is not an advocate, so he has to answer the question asked, rather than spin any response into the "on message" screed. Thus, he said the least that he could get away with. Holdren actually understands the moral dilemma of rejecting AGW or admitting it is too late to "fix" the problem through carbon emissions reductions policies alone. I don't find any more support from Holdren than we have seen from Hawkins. I repeat what I have written to this group before. You have no friends in Washington, D.C. (i.e., the government). David Schnare On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]> wrote: Not much different than what he said in the Hot Planet documentary. Joe Romm misrepresented Holdren's views on this in an article he write late last year by selectively truncating a quote Holdren made about the use of geoengineering. What he actually said was the same as in these articles. We can't take any option off the table. The problems with air capture extend beyond just cost also. It continues to amaze me how journalists still don't grasp the concept of aerosol precursors. I guess it's like teaching a dog to make a phone call. It can be done with great difficulty, but you still can't have an intelligent conversation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/obama-global-warming-plan_n_184657.html Obama Global Warming Plan Involves Cooling Air digg Huffpost - Obama Global Warming Plan Involves Cooling Air stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThisSETH BORENSTEIN | April 8, 2009 11:55 AM EST | WASHINGTON - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort. "It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table." Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said. Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog." At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions. Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea. The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment." Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically. But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air _ making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested _ could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said. Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added. Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide _ the chief human-caused greenhouse gas _ out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Wanser" <[email protected]> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:52 AM Subject: [geo] John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table > > http://www.startribune.com/nation/42671837.html > > Obama science adviser: Global warming so dire, we may need to tinker > with Earth's atmosphere > > Associated Press > > WASHINGTON - The president's new science adviser said that global > warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing drastic > options to cool Earth's air. > > John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since > being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate > is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting > pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's > rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as > a last resort. > > As he put it: "It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of > taking any approach off the table." > > --------- > Kelly Wanser > > > > <br --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
