Response to Daly's crtique (below) of geo-engineering ------------------------- The very sad and unappreciated truth is that:
a. If all emissions were shut off tomorrow, the sulfate would go away first and that would yield about a W/m2 forcing in first two weeks, perhaps diminished slightly by loss of organic aerosols (though these may be balanced by loss of black carbon). Then we’d lose several tenths of a W/m2 due to methane over a decade or two. But with thermal inertia and the remaining positive forcing, temperature would be pushed up to near 2 C (and dangerous is likely really about 0.5, not 2). And such an emissions shutoff cannot occur. b. If the global CO2 emissions could be held constant at the year 2000 level for century (so global emissions of about 6.5 GtC/yr) even as population rises, standard of living rises, and we tend toward coal and oil shale, and then go to zero CO2 emissions after that, we are at 550 ppm or so, and that warming (given end of SO2 emissions) is 3 C or so above preindustrial and clearly over reasonable limit. Doing this will be a real challenge, but not good enough. c. If we assume 8 billion average population for the century and 3 tonneC/yr per person, we reach 1000 ppm by 2100 and would likely be headed higher, and that is 6 C or so. What energy path does one choose that keeps world from going over 2 C, and maybe way over, and how would we suffer through those impacts? So, question is do we suffer or consider climate engineering. There is no question we must mitigate-the question is how much we must suffer. 7/2/11 1:08 PM, "Kirk R. Smith" <krksm...@berkeley.edu <krksm...@berkeley.htm ________________________________________________________ http://steadystate.org/geo-engineering-or-cosmic-protectionism/ June 27, 2011, Daily News Geo-engineering or Cosmic Protectionism? by Herman Daly “We are capable of shutting off the sun and the stars because they do not pay a dividend.” John Maynard Keynes, 1933 Frederic Bastiats classic satire, Petition of the Candlemakers Against the Sun, has been given new relevance. Written in 1845 in defense of free trade and against national protectionism in France, it can now be applied quite literally to the cosmic protectionists who want to protect the global fossil fuel-based growth economy against unfair competition from sunlight a free good. The free flow of solar radiation that powers life on earth should be diminished, suggest some, including American Enterprise Institutes S. Thernstrom (Washington Post 6/13/09, p. A15), because it threatens the growth of our candle-making economy that requires filling the atmosphere with heat-trapping gasses. The protectionist solution of partially turning off the sun (by albedo-increasing particulate pollution of the atmosphere) will indeed make thermal room for more carbon-burning candles. Although this will likely increase GDP and employment, it is attended by the inconvenient fact that all life is pre-adapted by millions of years of evolution to the existing flow of solar energy. Reducing that flow cancels these adaptations wholesale just as global warming cancels myriad existing adaptations to temperature. Artificially reducing our most basic and abundant source of low entropy (the solar flux) in order to more rapidly burn up our scarcer terrestrial source (fossil fuels), is contrary to the interests both of our species and of life in general. Add to that the fact that candles, and many other components of GDP, are at the margin increasingly unneeded and expensive, requiring aggressive advertising and Ponzi-style debt financing in order to be sold, and one must conclude that geo-engineering the world for more candles and less sunlight is an even worse idea than credit default swaps. Why then do some important and intelligent people advocate geo-engineering? As the lesser evil compared to absolutely catastrophic and imminent climate disaster, they say. If the American Enterprise Institute has now stopped offering scientists money to write papers disputing global warming, and in fact has come around to the view that climate change is bad, then why have they not advocated carbon taxes or cap-auction-trade limits? Because they think the technical geo-fix is cheap and will allow us to buy time and growth to better solve the problem in the future. One more double whiskey to help us get our courage up enough to really face our growth addiction! Probably we are irrevocably committed to serious climate change and will have to bear the costs, adapt, and hasten our transition to a steady state economy at a sustainable (smaller) scale. Panicky protectionist interventions by arrogant geo-engineers to save growth for one more round will just make things worse. At the earthly level I am no free trader, and neither was Keynes, but shutting off the sun and the stars to protect the fossil fuel economy is carrying protectionism to cosmic extremes. Reality has overtaken satire. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
