Andrew should be aware that some activists are demanding a moratorium on climate change research as a whole:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/think-of-all-money-it-will-save-on.html One hopes it will not entail activists glueing themselves to climate modelers. On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:57:28 AM UTC-4 Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > https://reason.com/2022/09/25/the-unscientific-panic-over-solar-geoengineering/ > > > > > Reason logo > LATEST > MAGAZINE > VIDEO > PODCASTS > VOLOKH > NEWSLETTERS > DONATE > SUBSCRIBE > > Search for: > GEOENGINEERING > > The Fight To Stop Research Into a Cheap, Effective Backup Plan for Climate > Change > Why are activists trying to stop research into a promising backup plan to > handle climate change? > RONALD BAILEY | FROM THE OCTOBER 2022 ISSUE > > Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint > friendly version > > featuerBailey > (Illustration: Joanna Andreasson; Source image: Nikelser/iStock) > Last year a team of Harvard scientists had an idea involving a large > balloon and a small amount of chalk dust. They devised an experiment in > which a weather balloon would release less than 2 kilograms of calcium > carbonate about 12 miles above a Swedish Space Corporation facility near > the arctic town of Kiruna, or possibly a tiny quantity of sulfate > particles, equivalent to the amount released in a single minute by a > typical commercial aircraft. > > These plans were greeted with utter panic. Activist groups declared the > "risks of catastrophic consequences" were too great, and there were "no > acceptable reasons" for allowing the project to go forward. Experimenting > with this technology, they claimed, has "the potential for extreme > consequences, and stands out as dangerous, unpredictable, and > unmanageable." The Swedish government canceled the tests. > > What could possibly be so terrifying about this seemingly innocuous > research proposal? > > The project was the first step in researching a promising strategy to > counteract some of the effects of climate change: stratospheric > geoengineering, specifically solar aerosol injection. By dispersing bright > particles into the stratosphere where they would reflect sunlight back out > into space, the theory goes, humanity might be able to generate a kind of > global sunscreen and cool the warming earth. The Harvard researchers hoped > to gather some data on aerosol density, particles' effects on atmospheric > chemistry, and how well they scatter light to allow climate modelers to > improve the fidelity of their simulations. > > A decade earlier, British researchers tried to get a similar proposal off > the ground. That one involved a kilometer-long hose that would have sprayed > two bathtubs' worth of water from a balloon over a disused military > airstrip in the Norfolk countryside, allowing scientists to monitor how the > wind affected the motion of the balloon and hose. > > That, too, was canceled after Friends of the Earth, the ETC Group, and > other activists similarly denounced it as a step down a "very high-risk > technological path" that "could have devastating consequences" for the > world. > > Neither of these experiments would have affected the weather, much less > the climate, in any way. Yet opposition to stratospheric aerosol injection > research, and solar geoengineering research more generally, is intense. The > underlying worry isn't that the technology will be a flop. In fact, the > most vigorous opponents seem convinced that research into stratospheric > geoengineering will show tremendous promise to combat warming quickly and > cheaply. And that, they fear, could be the most dangerous finding of all. > > An Artificial Pinatubo > This idea of a planetary sunshade isn't new. Researchers have focused on > the concept since the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the > Philippines. The eruption explosively injected about 20 million tons of > sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, going more than 12 miles high. Those > particles reflected enough sunlight to lower the average temperature of the > globe by 0.5 degrees Celsius in 1992. > > The earth's average temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees Celsius > since the 19th century due to man-made climate change. Under the 2015 Paris > Agreement, the nations of the world committed to keep that increase from > going 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial global average. To meet > the Paris Agreement's goal, the countries involved made plans to transition > away from fossil fuels to no-carbon and low-carbon energy sources, such as > solar, nuclear, and wind power. Given plausible energy use and deployment > scenarios, recent work by climate researcher Roger Pielke Jr. and his > colleagues at the University of Colorado projects the average global > temperature to rise by the year 2100 to between 2–3 degrees Celsius, with a > median of 2.2 degrees. Pielke notes that this is "within spitting distance" > of the Paris goal. > > But what if those projections are wrong and the planet warms much faster > than calculated? Proponents of solar geoengineering think we might be able > to bridge the gap by mimicking the Pinatubo eruption. The most plausible > proposal is the one those Harvard researchers want to explore: solar > aerosol injection. This would involve annually scattering millions of tons > of particles—generally sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, or calcium > carbonate—into the stratosphere. At this stage they are proposing only to > do preliminary work to assess the idea's feasibility. > > Where some researchers see promise, others see a possible apocalypse. In > January, a group of climate researchers published an open letter in the > journal WIREs Climate Change calling for "an international non-use > agreement" to prohibit research and development of solar geoengineering > technologies. "These proliferating calls for solar geoengineering research > and development are cause for alarm," they argued, "as they risk the > normalization of these technologies as a future policy option." To stop > that, "a strong political message to block these technologies is needed." > They seek to completely halt all research in its tracks. > > The researchers raise four main objections to researching solar radiation > management technologies: They say that it is ungovernable, that it runs the > risk of termination shock if the technology is abruptly stopped, that it > puts the world on a slippery slope, and that it constitutes a moral hazard. > > Ungovernable Research > The authors of the WIREs manifesto claim that solar geoengineering is > "impossible to govern fairly and effectively," by which they mean that > there is no way for the world to collectively reach a general international > agreement on how to implement a solar radiation management program. Since > they believe that deployment is ungovernable, then research must be banned. > > Is there anything ungovernable about the research itself? The National > Academy of Sciences' recent Reflecting Sunlight report offers some > recommendations for keeping solar geoengineering under control. For > example, funders would "require independent peer review of the research and > an assessment of the plausible impacts." Peer review would include public > and stakeholder engagement in the design and review of the research. The > Harvard project is being guided by just such an outside independent > advisory committee. > > The report further recommended that funders promote international > cooperation, citing the Developing Country Impacts Modelling Analysis for > Solar Radiation Management (DECIMALS) project as an example of how to > engage solar geoengineering researchers in developing countries. DECIMALS > funds research teams in developing countries as they model how solar > radiation management could affect their regions. Such teams are currently > active in Bangladesh, South Africa, Argentina, and the Philippines, among > other places. > > Ultimately, the WIREs manifesto fails to make the case that solar > geoengineering research is any more dangerously ungovernable than the > preliminary research that led to such developments as genetically modified > crops, space satellites, and Antarctic exploration. > > One oft-expressed concern is that, since climate change is an issue that > crosses global boundaries, so too would be the deployment of a > stratospheric sunscreen. One country, or maybe even one wealthy individual, > could unilaterally deploy a sunscreen affecting the entire world's climate. > Noting that the costs of solar geoengineering are relatively low, the > political scientist David G. Victor has outlined a scenario in the Oxford > Review of Economic Policy in which a single wealthy "self-appointed > protector of the planet" decides to deploy solar radiation management on > his own. > > Dubbed "Greenfinger," after the James Bond villain Goldfinger, this > scenario formed the central plot of Neal Stephenson's 2021 cli-fi novel > Termination Shock. The Texas plutocrat T.R. Schmidt builds the biggest gun > on the planet, dubbed Pina2bo, at his remote ranch, aiming to lower the > earth's temperature by firing sulfur-filled shells into the stratosphere. > In real life, a coalition of climate activists decried Microsoft founder > Bill Gates as "the Sugar Daddy of Geoengineering" in 2020 because he has > donated to a fund that has supported the Harvard research project. > > Setting lone billionaires aside, the WIREs manifesto worries that "a few > countries could engage in solar geoengineering unilaterally or in small > coalitions even when other countries oppose such deployment." Kim Stanley > Robinson sketches exactly that scenario in his tediously didactic 2020 > novel, The Ministry for the Future: In response to a heat wave that kills > 20 million citizens, India launches a fleet of aircraft to spray sulfur > dioxide in the stratosphere. > > Unilateral solar geoengineering is probably legal. As Daniel Bodansky, a > law professor at Arizona State University, recently noted in an article for > Harvard's Belfer Center, there is no "rule of international law that limits > its deployment." It is also unlikely to remain secret: Given that private > surveillance satellites have a resolution of around 10 inches, it would be > impossible to hide the base for a fleet of sulfur-spraying aircraft or a > facility housing other methods of injecting sulfur into the stratosphere. > Other countries fearing the possible side effects of solar radiation > management might decide to intervene to stop the unilateral deployment, > either through economic sanctions or military strikes. In Termination > Shock, India—misled by faulty climate modeling—surreptitiously tries to > sabotage Schmidt's Pina2bo project, but fails to do so. In fact, a recent > study found that solar radiation management would likely moderate the > increase in flooding in India that is projected for unabated climate change. > > More worryingly, what happens if those countries succeed in stopping such > a project after it has already begun? > > Termination Shock > Opponents of solar geoengineering research often cite the risk of > termination shock as a reason to ban it. If solar radiation management > masks a high level of warming, and that management is suddenly halted, they > fear this would result in a very rapid increase in temperature—the scenario > explored in Stephenson's novel of the same name. An abrupt and complete > halt to a longstanding program of solar aerosol injection, suggests some > research, could result in a rate of warming that is 10 times faster than if > geoengineering had not been deployed. Such a sudden increase in > temperatures would obviously have serious consequences for both the natural > world and agricultural production that would not have adapted to the new > higher temperatures. > > But termination shock may be both much less likely and much less risky > than previous analyses have suggested. For one thing, there would be a > buffer period of months at least before any global temperature rise would > become significant. > > How might we end up in a termination shock scenario? Researchers Peter > Irvine and Andy Parker looked at three ways termination shock could hit and > what could be done about them in a 2018 analysis in the journal Earth's > Future. > > The first pathway is an attack against the deployment infrastructure. > This, they note, would be a difficult task: Solar radiation management > delivery equipment would be geographically distributed and defended much > like nuclear power plants and military bases are now. In addition, > countries deploying solar radiation management would likely have or could > quickly assemble backup equipment that would maintain solar radiation > management cooling before temperatures start to rise rapidly. > > The second pathway would be a global economic cataclysm. Given how > relatively cheap solar radiation management is likely to be, Parker and > Irvine calculate that the global gross domestic product would have to drop > by 90 percent before maintaining solar radiation management would cost more > than 1 percent of the world's post-catastrophe economy. For comparison, the > devastation of World War II reduced European GDP by 21 percent. > > Their third pathway would be for some countries simply to choose to cease > solar radiation management. In such a case, other countries could ramp up > their solar radiation management efforts. Considering the climate effects > of a swift end to solar radiation management, parties wanting to end solar > radiation management would likely be open to a gradual phase-out of > deployment. > > Slippery Slopes and Moral Hazards > In a 2019 statement, the Climate Action Network-International (a coalition > of 1,500 activist groups from 130 countries) claimed that solar radiation > experiments could end up "dragging the world to a 'slippery slope' where > larger experiments will be required to validate previous ones that may have > failed or not deployed at sufficient scale. Unforeseen consequences of > human intervention into the climate and weather systems are to be > expected." The authors of the WIREs manifesto similarly warned that these > experiments could lead to "'locking in' solar geoengineering as an > infrastructure and policy option." > > That is not how scientific research usually proceeds. Most research on new > technologies is a dead end, as the then-UCLA legal scholar Jesse L. > Reynolds pointed out in a 2020 article in WIREs Climate Change. For > example, only 10 percent of clinical trials result in a pharmaceutical > treatment. What's more, even successfully developed technologies have been > abandoned—supersonic passenger airplanes, for example. Claims that > researching solar aerosol injection is the beginning of a slippery slope > toward deployment is largely alarmist hand waving. > > A stronger argument, and the most prevalent one, is that a cheap effective > strategy for stopping or even reversing warming could create a moral > hazard. In the insurance industry, moral hazard occurs when insured parties > take greater risks because they know their insurers will protect them > against losses. In the context of geoengineering, a 2014 article in > Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A observes that "the moral > hazard is not so much an economic risk but a social, ethical and political > one. Geoengineering might be perceived as an insurance policy against > climate change, undermining support for existing climate policies." > > In the words of the WIREs manifesto, "Speculative hopes about the future > availability of solar geoengineering technologies could threaten > commitments to mitigation and reduce incentives for governments, > businesses, and societies to do their utmost to achieve decarbonization or > carbon neutrality as soon as possible." They are particularly worried that > fossil fuel interests will duplicitously campaign to adopt geoengineering > rather than switching to non-fossil fuel energy sources. Solar radiation > management would function as an emergency cooling system for the planet, > but it is not a permanent solution to climate change caused by loading up > the atmosphere with extra greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide from > burning fossil fuels. > > In the case that man-made warming turns out to be much faster than > currently projected, putting up a stratospheric sunscreen would provide > humanity extra time in which to develop and deploy low-carbon energy > technologies and devise ways to reduce the extra carbon dioxide in the > atmosphere. An additional issue is that even as temperatures are moderated > by solar radiation management, increasing levels of carbon dioxide will > continue the process of ocean acidification, which may have detrimental > effects on the functioning of marine ecosystems. > > But critics of solar geoengineering focus almost entirely on the > possibility that it might discourage efforts to cut greenhouse gas > emissions while ignoring its possible reductions in climate change's > deleterious effects. "Climate change poses severe risks to ecosystems and > humans, especially to the already vulnerable," Reynolds points out. "If > solar radiation management could reduce these risks, as current evidence > indicates, then an ethical duty to at least explore its potential seems > reasonable." He dryly observes that focusing solely on the possible > downsides of solar radiation management is "analogous to considering only > that seat belts cause car drivers to drive faster while neglecting the > belts' safety effects." > > Tools for Future Generations > All of this fevered opposition contrasts strongly with the findings in the > National Academy of Sciences' Reflecting Sunlight report, which concluded > that doing some preliminary research on how to dim the sun is a good idea. > The committee suggested a "reasonable initial investment" in solar > geoengineering research would be "in the range of $100–200 million total > over 5 years." Similarly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's > most recent assessment, released last year, assigned "high confidence" to > the finding that solar radiation modification could offset greenhouse > gases' climate effects. > > In a 2021 article for Climatic Change, Yale geoengineering lecturer Wake > Smith and White House energy expert Claire Henly acknowledge the concerns > that research on solar radiation management might constitute a moral > hazard. But that doesn't mean, they add, that "the right response is to > limit [solar aerosol injection] research in a bid to shroud the future in > ignorance and foreclose to it certain options." > > We are bequeathing to our descendants a world in which the climate is > changing in what may be very deleterious ways. "In this context," Smith and > Henly ask, "is it justified for us to deprive future generations of tools > that may lessen the pain we have inflicted? They may or may not use these > tools, but surely those decisions are theirs to make." > > This article originally appeared in print under the headline "The > Unscientific Panic Over Solar Geoengineering". > > Subscribe to Reason Roundup, a wrap up of the last 24 hours of news, > delivered fresh each morning. > Email > Email Address > Submit > NEXT: Archives: October 2022 > > RONALD BAILEY is science correspondent at Reason. > > GEOENGINEERING > SCIENCE > JUNK SCIENCE > PANIC > CLIMATE CHANGE > INNOVATION > Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint > friendly versionMEDIA CONTACT & REPRINT REQUESTS > > Loading ... > MOST READ > > CLIMATE CHANGE > > If Sanders and Warren Think Climate Change Is an Emergency, Why Are They > Against These Green Energy Reforms? > If climate change is an emergency that requires immediate action, it makes > sense to streamline environmental reviews that tangle green energy projects > in red tape. > > ERIC BOEHM | 9.23.2022 2:35 PM > > > DONALD TRUMP > > Judge Reviewing Mar-a-Lago Documents Complains That Trump Has Offered No > Evidence He Declassified Them > In any case, that issue does not seem relevant under the statutes that the > FBI cited in its search warrant. > > JACOB SULLUM | 9.21.2022 2:45 PM > > > GEOENGINEERING > > The Fight To Stop Research Into a Cheap, Effective Backup Plan for Climate > Change > Why are activists trying to stop research into a promising backup plan to > handle climate change? > > RONALD BAILEY | FROM THE OCTOBER 2022 ISSUE > > > ENTERTAINMENT > > In Netflix's Dahmer, Incompetent Police Fail To Catch a Serial Killer > The show depicts the killer's gruesome crimes but lays some of the blame > on the Milwaukee police who failed for so long to catch him. > > JOE LANCASTER | 9.23.2022 8:45 PM > > > CAPITALISM > > Declining Faith in Both Capitalism and Socialism Leaves … What? > Many Americans don’t seem to like any economic systems, and they’re no > closer to agreement. > > J.D. TUCCILLE | 9.23.2022 7:00 AM > > About > Browse Topics > Events > Staff > Jobs > Donate > Advertise > Subscribe > Contact > Media > Shop > Amazon > Reason FacebookReason TwitterReason InstagramReason TikTokReason > YoutubeReason ItunesReason on FlipboardReason RSS > © 2022 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use > > Privacy Settings > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/141c43ce-025b-4c3c-b68b-327e5f6e51aen%40googlegroups.com.
