http://www.truthout.org/041809C
Toward Climate Geoengineering?
Saturday 18 April 2009
by: Andrew Glikson, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
photo
President Obama's science adviser, John Holdren, said in his first
interview this week that, "global warming is so dire, the Obama
administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's
air." (Photo: AP)
Preamble:
That global climate change has reached an impasse whereby the
"powers-to-be" are entertaining climate geoengineering mitigation,
instead of the urgent deep reduction of carbon emissions required by
science, represents the ultimate moral bankruptcy of institutions and
a failure of democracy.
With global atmospheric CO2 levels rising at about 2 ppm/year
toward 388 ppm, or near-440 ppm CO2-e (including methane effects),
John Holdren, in his first interview since being appointed as
President Obama's new science adviser, revealed in an interview with
The Associated Press (April 8, 2009) "global warming is so dire, the
Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool
Earth's air," which "as an experimental measure would only be used as
a last resort - It's got to be looked at - We don't have the luxury of
taking any approach off the table - One such extreme option includes
shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the
sun's rays. Holdren compared the way humanity is facing dangerous
climate change to passengers in a car with bad brakes heading toward a
cliff in a fog, saying, "The sensible passengers will certainly say:
'Let's put on the brakes, even if we don't know it will save us. It
may be too late. We don't know exactly where the cliff is.... Let's
get on with it.'"
Holdren is not alone in considering geoengineering. The National
Academy of Science is also looking at the subject in its new
multidiscipline climate challenges program. The American
Meteorological Society is preparing a statement on geoengineering,
stating "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to
understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment." The British
parliament has discussed the idea.
Climate geoengineering ideas fall into at least four principal
categories:
(1) increased reflectivity (albedo) of the atmosphere, injecting
sulphur dioxide (suggested by Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize winner
atmospheric chemist), or alumina particles, or even installing
reflectors in space. The effects of sulphur injections would simulate
volcanic events, such as of Pinatubo (1991) or Tambora (1816), which
resulted in cooling of the Earth's surface by about 0.5 degrees. At
best, albedo enhancement represents a short-term Band Aid solution to
the fundamental greenhouse problem, and will not be able to prevent
ocean acidification.
(2) Increased sequestration of CO2 in the oceans, enhancing algal
blooms and phytoplankton photosynthesis through fertilization with
iron filings, or constructing vertical pipe systems designed to
enhance oceanic circulation and CO2 intake from the atmosphere.
(3) Biochar burial and soil enrichment. Combustion of plant waste
under low oxygen conditions and burial as charcoal, removing carbon
from atmospheric circulation and enhancing plant growth and
photosynthesis, as well as soil enrichment. A major controversy
erupted with objections to Biochar by George Monbiot, involving James
Lovelock and James Hansen
(4) Chemical sequestration involving combination of CO2 with
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) installed in pipe systems ("Sodium trees"),
followed by separation and burial of CO2, costing at about $300 a ton
in US dollars. A back-of-an-envelope calculation suggests the
reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm would cost about $10 trillion
to $15 trillion in US dollars, (although mass production may lessen
the cost, as well as contribute to employment). That's less than 10
times the global military expenditure in 2007.
Increasingly, a "technological fix" may look attractive to Obama
and possibly the EU (and Rudd?), in view of at least three major
obstacles to CPRS and ETS schemes:
# First, due to the cumulative nature of atmospheric CO2, neither
5/15 percent nor 25/40 percent emission reduction by 2020 relative to
2000 would be able to prevent runaway climate change. This is because
CO2 levels, now at 387 ppm and rising by 2 ppm/year, will exceed 400
ppm by 2020, well into the high danger zone. Assuming CO2 emissions
are reduced by even 40 percent relative to 2000, it would keep rising
by a minimum of 1.2 ppm/year, reaching levels near or above 450 ppm by
2050, and this is without even accounting for the effects of methane,
likely reduced CO2 intake by the oceans and increase in positive
feedbacks from the biosphere. At 450 ppm, with lag effects, polar ice
sheets undergo advanced melting, with consequent major sea level rise.
It is not clear how many of the submissions made to the Australian
Senate Inquiry into the CPRS take account of this factor.
# Second, it is a good question whether even such feeble CPRS
attempts would not be squashed by the all-powerful fossil fuel lobby,
currently supporting a massive, well-funded disinformation campaign,
including claims as if the Earth is "cooling", accusing scientists and
environmentalists of "environmental thuggery", including threats such
as by Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann ("I want people in Minnesota
armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to
fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, 'Having a revolution every now
and then is a good thing,' and the people - we the people - are going
to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And
I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom
forever in the United States." She added, "The science is on our side
on this one".
# Third, The preoccupation of suburbia international with economic
issues. Until people fully understand the implications of runaway
climate change, government actions are likely to be restricted within
the context of the virtual reality of economic boom-bust bubbles,
where greed and fear obscure the physical realities of the environment
and of agricultural food production, a consequence of over 60 years of
commercial propaganda rendering populations victims of ruthless vested
interests at the expense of future generations.
The Wilkins ice shelf collapse is but the latest symptom of fast-
melting polar ice. Last year was the first during which the huge
(13,680 square kilometers) shelf, which bridges the West Antarctic
peninsula with the Charcot and Latady islands, developed fractures
during mid-winter. Now advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) images
acquired on April 2, 2009, by the European Earth Observation (ESA's)
Envisat satellite confirm the ice shelf is collapsing into thousands
of ice bergs, removing the barrier for the flow of continental
glaciers into the ocean.
Climate geoengineering is fiercely feared and resisted by many
scientists and environmentalists, due to the collateral damage and
side effects, and because it would take pressure off the carbon
polluters. Moreover, that the powers-to-be reached an impasse with
CPRS schemes suggests to many a moral bankruptcy of institutions and a
failure of democracy. It is likely that only a combination of deep
urgent cuts in carbon emissions, coupled with major investments in
fast-tracked development of a wide range of effective carbon dioxide
draw-down methods, may be capable of making the difference.
--------
Dr. Andrew Glikson is an Earth and paleoclimate scientist at the
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
