http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/985135/sceptics_told_theyd_be_foolish_to_ignore_potential_of_geoengineering.html
As global climate talks stall, calls for more trials of ideas to alter the world's climate known as 'geoengineering' are likely to grow we need to start by being honest about the overwhelming impacts humanity is already having on the Earth system Green groups reacted with astonished anger earlier this month to news that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had convened a geoengineering expert group meeting in Lima to propose radical solutions to the climate crisis. More than 160 environmental groups wrote an open letter to the IPCC decrying what appeared to be a tacit acceptance that manipulation of the natural environment had some part to play in dealing with runaway climate change. Geoengineering schemes include dumping iron filings into oceans to foster growth of carbon-sequestering algae, blasting mirrors or sulphur dioxide particles into space to deflect sunlight and genetically modifying crops to be whiter and so reflect more heat. And yet with global carbon emissions increasing, political consensus on mitigation more intractable an issue than ever and unregulated forays into climate manipulation already underway (Richard Branson has endorsed atmospheric carbon-stripping, Bill Gates cloud-whitening), many now concede that environmentalists too will have to come to some accommodation with geoengineering. Critics counter that no quick-fix solution to climate change exists and may never exist. Meddling further with the environment, they say, will have manifold unforeseen, far-reaching and possibly catastrophic effects. The geoengineering cure, in short, may end up killing the patient. Is it plan A or B? The most authoritative paper on the subject, a 2009 report by the Royal Society, concluded that emissions reduction should be the priority of government. Geoengineering was still plan b. Geoengineering’s two main tranches –solar-radiation management (SRM: deflecting the sun’s rays to cool the earth) and techniques for removing carbon dioxide from the air – should ‘only be considered as part of a wide package of options for addressing climate change’. However, Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth’s head of climate change, says there is an acceptance among many scientists and ‘a good number’ of NGOs that some lower-risk measures need to be deployed as soon as they can be developed and robust governance is in place – negative emissions technologies like air capture of carbon and storage; measures with an off switch. ‘If it’s possible to deploy these things and stop them if things are going wrong then it’s possible to proceed with more comfort. If they have no way of being stopped easily and risk spiralling out of control, then clearly you have to proceed with extreme caution.’ Criticised for his high-profile conversion to nuclear energy, activist and author Mark Lynas hopes that geoengineering ‘can perhaps be considered a little more rationally’ by greens since it comes with ‘less historical baggage’. He distinguishes between ‘unintelligent’ geoengineering – polluting the world’s atmosphere – and taking a strategic approach to managing the world properly according to the ‘planetary boundaries’ defined by international science. ‘This may or may not involve direct climatic interventions like putting sulphates in the stratosphere, but we need to start by being honest with ourselves about the overwhelming impacts humanity is already having on the Earth system.’ -- 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.
