Doesn't sound like an accurate quote to me. I don't think I ever would have said "it would destroy the ozone layer" -- and "then we'd all die of that" doesn't sound like me either. (On the other hand, if the journalist comes up with the tape, I'd cry *mea culpa*.)
I find that often reporters stick quotes around what they remember me saying, but what they remember is filtered through the reporter's consciousness ... and reporters' memory [and demands for punchiness and brevity?] often leaves out qualifiers, nuance, context, and so on. I remember somebody, who will here go nameless, criticizing Jim Hansen not for what he said but for how he was misquoted. "He should have known how he would be misquoted," this person said. (And that quote is probably filtered through my own distorting consciousness and imperfect memory.) If you have ever read a newspaper account of an event that you were at, you will understand that journalistic representations of reality often differ from your own perceptions and memories. (Luckily, all those stories about events that I did not witness are unfailingly accurate.) Memory is creative reconstruction. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA [email protected]; [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:48 AM, John Gorman <[email protected]> wrote: > > To Ken > > Quote from this article > > "Ken Caldeira explains: "One of the problems... is that it would > destroy the ozone layer, so you might solve the problem of global > warming, but then we'd all die of that."" > > Did you actually say that? > > Although the ozone depletion is mybiggest concern about stratospheric > aerosols, my reading of the research is that it would not be a large > reduction. > > What are the latest thoughts. > > John gorman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 6:12 PM > Subject: [geo] More ink > > > > > > Johann Hari > > Columnist, London Independent > > Posted April 23, 2009 | 03:48 PM (EST) > > The Last Green Taboo: Should We Try To "Engineer" Our Climate? > > > > 'Geo-engineering' sounds like a bland and technical term -- but it is > > actually a Messianic movement to save the world from global warming, > > through dust and iron and thousands of tiny mirrors in space. It is > > also the last green taboo. Environmentalists instinctively do not > > want to discuss it. The wider public instinctively think it is mad. > > But in the past few years, the taboo has been breached. James > > Lovelock -- one of the founding fathers of modern environmentalism -- > > proposed a way to slash global warming without cutting back on a > > single fossil fuel. > > > > 'Geo-engineers' believe that man should consciously change the > > planet's environment, using technology, to counter the effects of > > global warming. They are like a chef who realizes she has > > accidentally put in too much cayenne, so reaches for lashings of > > oregano to balance it out, only this time, the recipe is the > > atmosphere of the planet earth. Ken Caldeira, a geo-engineering > > expert at the Carnegie Institute, says: "In effect, we're already > > engineering the climate by emitting so many greenhouse gases. We just > > don't want to admit it. You can argue that the only reason difference > > between what we're doing today and what geoengineering advocates are > > proposing is a matter of intention. And frankly, the atmosphere > > doesn't care about what's going on in our heads." > > > > Grand geoengineering schemes come in two main flavors. The first > > tries to increase the oceans' capacity to absorb carbon from the > > atmosphere. At the moment, the oceans are, along with the > > rainforests, the most effective natural mechanism for taking carbon > > out of the atmosphere. So geo-engineers ask: is there anything we can > > we do to supercharge them? > > > > The simplest proposal is to sprinkle vast amounts of iron along the > > surface of the world's seas. This would create the ideal conditions > > for a surge in the quantity of plankton, the friendly micro-organisms > > who 'eat' carbon while they are alive. When they die, they sink to > > the bottom of the ocean -- taking the carbon with them to a watery > > grave for centuries. It has been tried in a number of small-scale > > experiments off the coast of the Gallapagos Islands -- and it did > > indeed cause dead seas to spring to life with carbon-sucking plankton. > > > > Enter James Lovelock, with a similar proposal. He suggests another > > way to spur the oceans to sink massive amounts more of carbon > > dioxide. His plan is to build vast vertical pipes across the world's > > seas. They would pump water from the bottom of the oceans -- which is > > rich in nutrients, but mostly dead -- to the top. This rich water > > would be ideal for micro-organisms like salps to breed in. They too > > 'eat' carbon -- and then excrete it, where it sinks to the floor of > > the ocean. > > > > The second school of geoengineering projects try to reflect much more > > of the sun's energy back into space, so it doesn't stay here and cook > > us. For example, we know that when volcanoes erupt, they release huge > > amount of tiny sulphuric dust into the atmosphere that serve as a > > blanket and measurably cool the planet down. When Mount Tambora blew > > in 1815, for example, it was known as the "year without summer." So > > scientists like the Nobel Prize-winner Paul Crutzen have suggested we > > may have to artificially simulate this effect, by spraying sulphur > > into the atmosphere: in effect, fighting pollution with pollution. > > The US National Academy of Sciences has gone even further, suggesting > > that 55,000 small mirrors placed in the upper atmosphere would be > > enough to counter about half the impact of global warming. > > > > So why have greens been reluctant to discuss these solutions? They > > have a very good reason. All the evidence suggests that, in reality, > > it cannot work -- but it sounds just plausible enough to join > > denialism as another hallucinatory excuse to do nothing while the > > planet boils. > > > > To understand why, you need to look to the conservative philosopher > > Edmund Burke. In the eighteenth century, Burke argued that the > > functioning of human societies was so complex it could not be fully > > understood by the rational mind. If you pulled out one thread for > > impeccably rational reasons -- by, say, abolishing the monarchy -- > > you would find that dozens of other threads would come loose too, in > > ways you couldn't have predicted and would never have wanted. Burke > > was seriously wrong about human societies -- but, by a strange > > historical quirk, his approach applies quite well to understanding > > the ecosystem of the planet. > > > > Look again at the geo-engineering schemes we're discussing and you'll > > see how. Plans to make the plankton and salps 'eat' the carbon for us > > bump up against an unintended consequence. Too much organic matter > > sinking all at once triggers the release of methane -- the most > > warming gas of all. What about pumping sulphur into the atmosphere? > > Ken Caldeira explains: "One of the problems... is that it would > > destroy the ozone layer, so you might solve the problem of global > > warming, but then we'd all die of that." > > > > Nor do any of these schemes deal with the other great problem caused > > by our greenhouse gas emissions. They are making the oceans more > > acidic, killing off shell and coral formation at the bottom of the > > food chain. So even if we somehow blunted the global warming effect, > > the increased carbon in the atmosphere would still kill the oceans -- > > and ruin our sources of food. > > > > Yet soon, the fossil fuel industry may start marketing > > geo-engineering as The Solution, an alternative to cutting back. The > > scientist Josh Tosteson puts the necessary response well when he > > asks: "Do we really have the capacity to understand complex systems > > at the level of the globe well enough to make conscious perturbations > > that result only in the consequences that we want, and nothing else?" > > (Burke couldn't have put it better.) It is far smarter to try to stay > > close to the carefully balanced ecosystem that has evolved over > > millions of years than to cack-handedly engineer our own, with the > > extremely limited knowledge we have. > > > > Looking to smoke and mirrors in space, or James Lovelock's beautiful > > pipe-dream, to save us from having to cut back our carbon emissions > > is achingly tempting. I love the belching world we live in, and I > > wish it could be made to work. But carrying on pumping out greenhouse > > gases because of the possibility of geo-engineering is like telling > > an alcoholic that he doesn't need to quit drinking, because in a few > > years you'll give him a liver transplant -- with a few rusty old > > knives you found in your garage. > > > > Yet if we don't slash emissions now, in just a few decades' time we > > will be inescapably smacking into these geo-engineering choices. Do > > you save us from runaway global warming for a while, at the cost of > > destroying the ozone layer forever? Do you cool the oceans while > > letting them become acidic and die? Do you want to have to make that > > call? > > > > Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To read more > > of his articles, click here or here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
