Yes, and Oliver Morton is the source of the Ron Prinn quote, which I use as a chapter epigraph in my book (along with the citation).
Jim On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Alan Robock <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear all, > > I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times > today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 > reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several > articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his > original ideas. > > You can see all my papers at > http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html > > Here is the op-ed: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?hp&pagewanted=print > **Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?** ** By CLIVE > HAMILTON ** ** ** > > CANBERRA, Australia — THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s > atmosphere recently > surpassed<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html>400 > parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are > not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science. > > Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth > might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have > prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan > B: geoengineering. > > Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate > system to counter global > warming<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>or > offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its > technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and > regulate it in perpetuity. > > But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a > geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass. > > While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to > deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more > serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three > leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be > quickly deployed. > > Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose > carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their > reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but > would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme, > extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as > long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for > centuries. > > But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, > a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery > about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in length, according to a study by > the American Physical > Society<http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf>, > as well as huge collection facilities and a network of equipment to > transport and store the waste underground. > > The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the > effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to > renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper > causes of global warming — the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the > reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices. > > Even so, greater anxieties arise from those geoengineering technologies > designed to intervene in the functioning of the earth system as a whole. > They include ocean iron fertilization and sulfate aerosol spraying, each of > which now has a scientific-commercial constituency. > > How confident can we be, even after research and testing, that the chosen > technology will work as planned? After all, ocean fertilization — spreading > iron slurry across the seas to persuade them to soak up more carbon dioxide > — means changing the chemical composition and biological functioning of the > oceans. In the process it will interfere with marine ecosystems and affect > cloud formation in ways we barely understand. > > Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the > planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s > surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting > Arctic now. > > Plant life, already trying to adapt to a changing climate, would have to > deal with reduced sunlight, the basis of photosynthesis. A solar filter > made of sulfate particles may be effective at cooling the globe, but its > impact on weather systems, including the Indian monsoon on which a billion > people depend for their sustenance, is unclear. > > Some of these uncertainties can be reduced by research. Yet if there is > one lesson we have learned from ecology, it is that the more closely we > look at an ecosystem the more complex it becomes. Now we are contemplating > technologies that would attempt to manipulate the grandest and most complex > ecosystem of them all — the planet itself. Sulfate aerosol spraying would > change not just the temperature but the ozone layer, global rainfall > patterns and the biosphere, too. > > Spraying sulfate particles, the method most likely to be implemented, is > classified as a form of “solar radiation management,” an Orwellian term > that some of its advocates have sought to reframe as “climate remediation.” > > Yet if the “remedy” were fully deployed to reduce the earth’s temperature, > then at least 10 years of global climate observations would be needed to > separate out the effects of the solar filter from other causes of climatic > variability, according to some scientists. > > If after five years of filtered sunlight a disaster occurred — a drought > in India and Pakistan, for example, a possible effect in one of the > modeling studies — we would not know whether it was caused by global > warming, the solar filter or natural variability. And if India suffered > from the effects of global dimming while the United States enjoyed more > clement weather, it would matter a great deal which country had its hand on > the global thermostat. > > So who would be turning the dial on the earth’s climate? Research is > concentrated in the United States, Britain and Germany, though China > recently added geoengineering to its research priorities. > > Some geoengineering schemes are sufficiently cheap and uncomplicated to be > deployed by any midsize nation, or even a billionaire with a messiah > complex. > > We can imagine a situation 30 years hence in which the Chinese Communist > Party’s grip on power is threatened by chaotic protests ignited by a > devastating drought and famine. If the alternative to losing power were > attempting a rapid cooling of the planet through a sulfate aerosol shield, > how would it play out? A United States president might publicly condemn the > Chinese but privately commit to not shooting down their planes, or to > engage in “counter-geoengineering.” > > Little wonder that military strategists are taking a close interest in > geoengineering. Anxious about Western geopolitical hubris, developing > nations have begun to argue for a moratorium on experiments until there is > agreement on some kind of global governance system. > > Engineering the climate is intuitively appealing to a powerful strand of > Western technological thought that sees no ethical or other obstacle to > total domination of nature. And that is why some conservative think tanks > that have for years denied or downplayed the science of climate change > suddenly support geoengineering, the solution to a problem they once said > did not exist. > > All of which points to perhaps the greatest risk of research into > geoengineering — it will erode the incentive to curb emissions. Think about > it: no need to take on powerful fossil-fuel companies, no need to tax > gasoline or electricity, no need to change our lifestyles. > > In the end, how we think about geoengineering depends on how we understand > climate disruption. If our failure to cut emissions is a result of the > power of corporate interests, the fetish for economic growth and the > comfortable conservatism of a consumer society, then resorting to climate > engineering allows us to avoid facing up to social dysfunction, at least > for as long as it works. > > So the battle lines are being drawn over the future of the planet. While > the Pentagon “weaponeer” and geoengineering enthusiast Lowell Wood, an > astrophysicist, has proclaimed, “We’ve engineered every other environment > we live in — why not the planet?” a more humble climate scientist, Ronald > G. Prinn <http://web.mit.edu/rprinn/> of the Massachusetts Institute of > Technology, has asked, “How can you engineer a system you don’t > understand?” > ** > > Clive Hamilton <http://www.cappe.edu.au/staff/clive-hamilton.htm>, a > professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, is the > author<http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300186673>, > most recently, of “Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate > Engineering.” > ** > > -- > Alan Robock > > Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor > Editor, Reviews of Geophysics > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > http://twitter.com/AlanRobock > > -- > 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. > > > -- James Fleming STS Program Colby College 5881 Mayflower Hill Waterville, ME 04901 Ph: 207-859-5881 Fax: 207-859-5846 Web: http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleming <http://web.colby.edu/jfleming> -- 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.
