How about we "re-terraform" rather than "terraform" the planet, since it was pretty well terraformed before we arrived on the scene? Greg
________________________________ From: Fred Zimmerman <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 12:27:13 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Opinion: Dreams we cannot afford, by Russ George — The Daily Climate Carl Sagan used "planetary engineering" in 1973. http://media.cigionline.org/geoeng/1973%20-%20Sagan%20-%20Planetary%20Engineering%20on%20Mars.pdf "terraforming" was in common use in science fiction from the 1960s to describe the process of making uninhabitable worlds Terra-like or habitable http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=geoengineering,planetary+engineering,terraforming&year_start=1800&year_end=1977&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share "Terraforming" may deserve some renewed attention as we are going to be engaged in making the uninhabitable habitable ... Thanks, Andrew. A couple of comments: >As far as I know, Marchetti (1977), not David Keith, was the "father of the >term >'geoengineering'" > > >I thought Klaus Lackner, not David Keith, is known as the father of the >"artificial tree". > > > > >-Greg > > > > > ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >To: geoengineering <[email protected]> >Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 11:12:52 PM >Subject: [geo] Opinion: Dreams we cannot afford, by Russ George — The Daily >Climate > > > >http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/05/opinion-ocean-geoengineering >Dreams we cannot afford >By Russ George >The Daily Climate >VANCOUVER, British Columbia – >The billions of dollars required by geoengineers to scrub the atmosphere of >carbon will bankrupt us. I have a cheaper solution. >I met David Keith, often described as the father of geoengineering, a few >years >back in the backstage "green room" in New York City as we were preparing to go >on stage for a TED event. TED talks charge high ticket prices for lavishly >produced events on worldly topics that the intelligentsia and cognoscenti of >technology and science like to attend. David, Martin Hoffert and I were >speaking >that night on a common theme: What to do about anthropogenic carbon >dioxide.Geoengineers are presenting ideas that require hundreds of billions, >even trillions, of dollars to solve the crisis of human-driven climate >change.Marty, retired now from New York University, is a voluble advocate for >getting off fossil fuels to avoid climate change impacts. David is a physics >professor at Harvard University and is backed by Bill Gates. He's proud to be >the father of the term "geoengineering," where we alter the climate to suit >our >needs instead of Nature's. Me? I am displeased to have the term hung around >my >neck. But I am an old hippy tree-planter who has spent life living outside of >the box, with some bit of help from folks inside said box. I compromise and >call >myself an "ecoengineer."What transpired in the "green room" started out as a >friendly exchange of views that became a heated discussion and rapidly >devolved >into an argument with sparks flying. My premise: The cost of dealing with >anthropogenic CO2 must be and can be a tiny fraction of the cost demanded by >those working in the field inside the box. >David and other geoengineers are presenting ideas and inventions to the world >that require hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars to solve the >crisis of human-driven climate change. David's "artificial trees" – named >after >plants' abilities to pull carbon dioxide from the air – consist of vast arrays >of fans blowing our carbon-rich air over a pool of sodium hydroxide. Other >plans >would have us send a fleet of planes or blimps aloft to seed the clouds with >light-reflecting particles, much as a large volcanic explosion do. More >farfetched are plans to lob trillions of mirrors into orbit to deflect the >sun's >energy.My work over the past two decades shows that we can solve a large part >of >the crisis for a small fraction of the cost. And because it's ecoengineering, >we're restoring ecosystems at the same time we're solving climate change.Last >summer, in the largest geoengineering project to date, I oversaw an ocean >experiment that sowed 120 tons of iron sulphate and iron ore rock dust into >the >Pacific Ocean more than 200 miles west of British Columbia's Haida Gwaii >islands. The premise was simple: Iron, acting as a fertilizer, would trigger a >phytoplankton bloom that would pull carbon from the ocean. We'd simply be >replenishing the sea with a natural mineral micronutrient. The whole ocean >food >chain would benefit, as well as the Haida, who have suffered from diminished >salmon runs. >Our carbon emissions are an immediate, cataclysmic problem for the oceans that >make up more than 70 percent of our blue planet. We are delivering a lethal >overdose of carbon dioxide to the ocean environment.This is the crisis of CO2, >and we might as well forget about any long term problems associated with >global >warming – and the trillions of dollars needed by geoengineers like David >Keith >– if we do not first deal with ocean health.Some in the international >community >and in Canada claim that our project was unlawful are presently before the >Supreme Court of British Columbia. A thorough review of law in Canada has yet >to >discover anything identifying the work as being unlawful. Other scientists >have >said this approach won't work – that other studies have found little ability >for >iron fertilization efforts to permanently sequester carbon on any scale >relevant >to counter human emissionsWe have found otherwise. Six years of preparation >and >months of sea studies aboard our research ships – along with two state of the >art Slocum Ocean gliders and hourly data from buoys at the site – have >produced >nearly 200 million discrete measurements of the ocean environment and the >bloom. >The experiment is working.For mere pennies per ton of captured carbon dioxide, >the native village I've been working with has replenished and restored its >traditional ocean pasture. In doing so we captured tens of millions of ton of >CO2 last year. The carbon has been converted into an even more valuable form: >Life itself – plankton – that my friends on British Columbia's Haida Gwaii >islands know best as fish food. Here's a link to a narrative on how well it >worked. >So five years have passed since that New York City TED evening, and David >Keith's prototype artificial trees are being readied for a test. If the test >works perhaps the world will pour more money into a larger test. If that >works, >he needs a price on carbon dioxide – $200 per ton – to scale up his effort to >chemically engineer a solution out of the air.Saving the world one village at >a >time is practical and immediately possible. At a fraction of the cost of >David's >artificial trees, our native grown ecoengineering project is in fully >operational condition, turning CO2 from its deadly form into life.And let's >look >at the economics: A $200 price tag on carbon emissions would have considerable >ripple effects on the world economy. Take a flight from New York to Paris as >one >example. Each passenger disembarks with a two- to three-ton carbon >footprint.Factoring in how fees and surcharges tend to multiply as they get >passed to consumers, that sends the airfare soaring from about $1,150 today >to >about $2,350 with Keith's carbon offset price.Our village-based ocean plan, in >contrast, adds less than $30 to the ticket price for the same amount of carbon >sequestration. And you get delicious wild salmon with your inflight meal.We >may >still need David's artificial trees. I'm pretty sure we cannot afford them. >Russ George (Twitter: @russgeorge2) is founder of the Vancouver based firm >Haida >Salmon Restoration Corp. which seeks to use ecoengineering projects to restore >ecosystems, help salmon runs and slow climate change. -- >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. > > > > -- >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. > > > -- 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.
