Few members of this group will find much to argue with in Lovejoy's summary of our predicament. The big issue implicit in his comments is the relationship between technology and behavioural change in the formulation of ethical policies that might prevent the global tragedy he foreshadows. The scale of the problem is such that it seems, to me at least, inconceivable that technology (including biotechnology) can solve this problem without deep engagement by the body politic, not just the politicians but the people as well. The spatial and temporal scales with which we are concerned and the sense that the way forward should not be determined merely by the world's current rich and powerful create a unique set of challenges for both domestic and international policymakers. The ethical implications of geoengineering solutions which place humanity in control of the global climate, a control that given the climate's complex nature and emergent properties can never be predictably managed, raise problems of international governance and justice whose surface has hardly been surveyed let alone scratched. The ethical implications of emissions abatement on a global scale with the developed world attached to its lifestyles and the rest striving to approach them while still growing in number, are also of immense proportions. The conflation by the UNFCCC in its approach to climate change of emissions reductions and global inequality is at the heart of its failure after almost twenty years to have made any substantial progress on either. Does anyone believe that the UNFCCC is likely to produce a global agreement that will be sufficiently timely, sufficiently abating and sufficiently enforceable (or at least sufficiently complied with), to avert dangerous climate change? If so, please post the evidence here.
It is apparent from the burgeoning literature on climate change and geoengineering that a revolution is needed in the international community's treatment of these issues. Existing structures and political processes need to be shaken up and redirected with the sense of urgency that Lovejoy demands but also, and here's the challenge, a setting aside of narrow national interest and short term economic and political ambition in favour of a genuinely cosmopolitan openness to mankind's global future. I say this not because I have any particular predilection for cosmopolitanism but simply because for the first time in human history we are confronted by a truly global problem that has no respect for the manmade spatial boundaries that separate one country from another. Moreover, while some of us might care about climate change, climate change doesn't care about us. Sadly, I have no magic wand to deliver such a transformation in perception nor do I see anyone else clamouring to the front with the vision and capacity to shake us out of our calamitous daydream. Maybe the time is approaching when we need to start giving serious thought to how we adjust to a world with a global mean surface temperature approaching 20degC or maybe more. It might be a bit messy getting there but the new equilibrium might be full of new opportunities and quite a nice place to be for those who survive or are born into it, if you're not too concerned about all the things from our world that will have been lost. Robert Chris On Jun 12, 5:57 pm, "Rau, Greg" <[email protected]> wrote: > NY Times June 10, 2011 > Geo-Engineering Can Help Save the Planet > By THOMAS E. LOVEJOY > Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are pushing 400 parts per million > (p.p.m.) — up from the natural pre-industrial level of 280 p.p.m. Emissions > for last year were the highest ever. Rather than drift along until a calamity > galvanizes the world, and especially the United States, into precipitous > action, the time to act is now. > > The biology of the planet indicates we are already in a danger zone. The goal > of limiting temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, as discussed at the > Copenhagen and Cancun climate summits, is actually disastrous. > > As we push the planet’s average temperature increase beyond 0.75°C, coral > reefs (upon which 5 percent of humanity depends) are in increasing trouble. > The balance of the coniferous forests of western North America has been > tipped in favor of wood-boring bark beetles; in many places 70 percent of the > trees are dead. The Amazon — which suffered the two greatest droughts in > recorded history in 2005 and 2010 — teeters close to tipping into dieback, in > which the southern and eastern parts of the forest die and turn into savannah > vegetation. Estimates of sea-level rise continue to climb. > > Even more disturbing, scientists have determined that, if we want to stop at > a 2°C increase, global emissions have to peak in 2016. That seems impossible > given current trends. Yet most people seem oblivious to the danger because of > the lag time between reaching a greenhouse gas concentration level and the > heat increase it will cause. > > So what to do? One possibility is “geo-engineering” that essentially takes an > engineering approach to the planet’s climate system. An example would be to > release sulfates in large quantity into the atmosphere or do other things > that would reflect back some of the incoming solar radiation. > > There are serious flaws with most geo-engineering solutions because they > treat the symptom (temperature) rather than the cause (elevated levels of CO2 > and other greenhouse gases). That means the moment the solution falters or > stops, the planet goes right back into the ever-warmer thermal envelope. Such > “solutions” also neglect the oceans because elevated CO2 makes them more > acidic. Further, any unintended consequences of global scale geo-engineering > by definition will be planetary in scale. > > It’s far better to address the cause of climate change by lowering > concentrations of greenhouse gases to an acceptable level. That means going > beyond reduction and elimination of emissions to things that can pull out > some of the excess CO2. Fortunately, because living things are built of > carbon, the biology of the planet is capable of just that. > > At the moment, roughly half the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes > from destruction and degradation of ecosystems over the past three centuries. > A significant amount of CO2 can be withdrawn by ecosystem restoration on a > planetary scale. That means reforestation, restoring degraded grasslands and > pasturelands and practicing agriculture in ways that restore carbon to the > soil. There are additional benefits: forests benefit watersheds, better > grasslands provide better grazing and agricultural soils become more fertile. > This must integrate with competing uses for land as the population grows, but > fortunately it comes at a time of greater urbanization. > > The power of ecosystem restoration to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and > avoid disruptive climate change is great but insufficient. We also need to > use non-biological means to reduce atmospheric carbon. The barrier to the > latter is simply cost, so a sensible move would be to initiate a crash > program to find more economical ways. Some methods can build on natural > processes that consume CO2, such as the weathering of rock and soil > formation. Other methods could simply convert CO2 into an inert substance. > For example, Vinod Khosla’s Calera experiment has demonstrated how to pull > carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere by mixing it with seawater to produce > cement. > > All of this must take place as we strive for a future with low carbon energy > sources and lower carbon transportation. It is in our own self-interest to > manage ourselves, the planet and its climate system in an integrated fashion. > We can do so, and there are abundant economic possibilities in doing so, but > the window of opportunity is closing rapidly. > > Thomas E. Lovejoy is professor of science and public policy at George Mason > University and biodiversity chairman at the H. John Heinz III Center for > Science, Economics and the Environment. -- 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.
