http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/05/the-conservativ-2.html
The conservative flip-flop on climate change (2) May 20, 2013 11:57 PM | No Comments Back in the 2008, Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote this for the ultra-conservative Hudson Institute, "Released CO2 gas makes the atmosphere more like a greenhouse, or it gets absorbed by the oceans and acidifies them. It's not that the world faces a shortage of oil and gas. Rather, the problem is that there may be no longer enough buffering capacity in the seas and the sky to hide the results of CO2 released by man and protect us from the consequences."Cuts in carbon are proposed because scientists report that it causes global warming and adversely affects the earth's climate. But some scientists, including Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen, now believe that altering features of the Earth's environment would be more effective and efficient against stopping global warming. This is called 'geoengineering.'"Advocates of geoengineering suggest it as a complement to reduce the use of carbon as a way to prevent or retard global warming. Successful geoengineering would permit Earth's population to make far smaller reductions in carbon use and still achieve the same retarding effect on global warming at a lower cost."Instead of denying global climate change, as they usually do, the Hudson Institute advocates that we fight the normally non-existent problem with airplane-injected sulfur into our atmosphere because it will cost us less than reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.And they are not the only one. While the American Enterprise Institute continues to deny that global warming is real, at the same time they are strongly advocating the radical transformation of our atmosphere with geoengineering to combat the problem that isn't real.According to the Economist, The Heartland Institute is "the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change." And yet they are advocates for geoengineering the climate, which includes injecting massive amounts of sulfur into our atmosphere forever more to protect us from our Sun and the heat death of global warming.While the Hudson Institute regularly publishes articles denying that global warming is real or human-caused, many of those pieces are written by Lee Lane, a resident fellow at AEI and codirector of the AEI Geoengineering Project, who has advocated researching the use of climate engineering (CE) technologies like solar radiation management (SRM).Lane was the lead author of a paper that offered, "a preliminary and exploratory assessment of the potential benefits and costs of climate engineering (CE). We examine two families of CE technologies, solar radiation management (SRM) and air capture (AC), under three emissions control environments: no controls, optimal abatement, and limiting temperature change to 2°C."Our analysis suggests that, today, SRM offers larger net benefits than AC, but that both deserve to be investigated further. In the case of SRM, we investigate three specific technologies: the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere, the increase of marine cloud albedo, and the deployment of a space-based sunshade."We estimate direct benefit-cost (B/C) ratios of around 25 to 1 for aerosols and around 5000 to 1 for cloud albedo enhancement."In other words, conservatives insist that global warming is not real or human-caused if the solution is carbon taxes or government regulation. However, if the solution is the highly profitable business of geoengineering, they not only believe global warming is real and human-caused, they think we need to get cracking on saving ourselves from it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
