http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/171/17105.htm#a11
Extract GEO-ENGINEERING 47. The Arctic Methane Emergency Group called for urgent intervention by governments to avoid tipping points being reached.[176] Given that there was "nothing in nature that can come to our help",[177] the Group called on governments to "intervene by cooling the Arctic, principally by using geo-engineering techniques; ... [these] techniques have natural analogues which suggest that they should be safe and effective ... if their deployment [avoided] unwanted side-effects".[178] They called for the urgent application of a combination of three geo-engineering technologies: spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away, cloud brightening using salt-spray also to increase reflection, and cloud removal to allow heat radiation into space. They also called for the use of methane capture technologies such as 'methane mats'.[179] 48. There was some differences of view in the evidence we received about whether geo-engineering in principle was a credible long-term solution. Professor Wadhams saw geo-engineering as a "sticking plaster" until the forcing of climate warming is tackled,[180] and John Nissen believed that the costs would be "hundreds of millions rather than many billions per year".[181] On the other hand, if such applications were subsequently stopped, the planet would warm up more quickly to where it would have been without geo-engineering, rather than the gradual warming otherwise expected.[182] Professor Lenton told us that "if you go down that path, you are committing not just the next generation but tens of generations potentially to keep doing that". He believed that it was important that economic modelling of geo-engineering costs included the "possible damages or risk factors" and a "critical look at those very few existing studies as to whether they have really quantified [them]".[183] 49. There was consensus that even if geo-engineering techniques could be used, they first required further development and were not ready for immediate deployment.[184] Professor John Latham of University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA and colleagues believed that as "key climate processes remain poorly understood, existing models are unable to provide a reliable means of quantifying the magnitude of changes that may occur".[185] Professor Lenton told us that advocates of geo-engineering techniques who suggest "meddling with Arctic cloud cover", do not necessarily realise that during the dark Arctic winter clouds generally warmed rather than cooled the atmosphere.[186] Overall, due diligence was needed to understand all the consequences of such techniques,[187] including impacts on rainfall,[188] weather patterns[189] and reduced incoming sunlight.[190] Professor Latham and colleagues believed that any geo-engineering scheme "needs to have its concepts rigorously challenged and then undergo rigorous, peer reviewed testing and scrutiny before any consideration of its use takes place".[191] 50. Geo-engineering techniques for the Arctic at present do not offer a credible long-term solution for tackling climate change. Further research is needed to understand how such techniques work and their wider impacts on climate systems. In the meantime, therefore, we remain unconvinced that using 'technical fixes' is the right approach and efforts should not be diverted from tackling the fundamental drivers of global climate change. -- 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.
