- FEBRUARY 9, 2010
-
-
VOTE
Who Deserves a Foreign Policy Oscar?
-
NORTH KOREA
Kim Losing Control?
-
EUROPE
We Still Don’t Know Who’s Running the EU
Britain's Royal Society to study climate "geoengineering"
Posted By Christina Larson
Friday, May 1, 2009 - 9:57 AM
Share
An interesting editorial in The Guardian by a member of Britain's Royal Society, the country's national academy of science, announced -- with a bit of modesty bordering on self-skepticism -- plans to look into "geoengineering" schemes to combat climate change:
The Royal Society has set up a study group on geoengineering climate. Without the answers there will be no way to take sensible decisions on this issue, based on evidence and facts rather than beliefs and suppositions (either for or against the idea). It may well be that our study will conclude that such schemes are not feasible, or too costly, have serious side-effects, or are too difficult to control. But it may not; and it is likely that we will need a lot more information before we can really decide."
After this rather remarkable bit of don't-get-your-hopes-too-high-ism, John Shepherd, the author, gets around to defining just what geoengineering means:
Geoengineering schemes for moderating climate change come in two main flavours. First there are those that aim to increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected away from the Earth (currently about 30%) by a few percent more. Second there are some that aim to increase the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, by enhancing the natural sinks for CO2, and maybe even by deliberately scrubbing it out of the air.
In other words, the Royal Society will be studying the possibility of reflecting sunlight away from the earth on a massive scale, and looking at new ways to sink CO2 into the ocean, or scrub clean the atmosphere. Pretty Jules Verne-seeming stuff, as Shepherd acknowledges:
If world leaders are unable to agree on effective action to deal with climate change ... we may in future be glad that someone took these ideas seriously. Seriously enough to separate the real science from the science fiction, anyway."
What's remarkable is that the Royal Society, founded in 1660, represents nothing if not the nation's crusty scientific establishment. And while the author presents these schemes with much hesitation and ado, it does seem an indicator of just how much more urgent, and desperate, the discussion over climate change is beginning to seem in the U.K.
Geoengineering is not engineering
Speaking as an engineer, geoengineering is not engineering.
What could be wrong with geo-engineering? Let us count the ways...
- There are no time-tested standards to follow.
- Testing is completely impossible. A small, isolated test does not imply the same technique will work on the largest complex system in the world -- the world itself.
- Side effects are completely unknown.
- You are fighting pollution with more pollution.
- National sovereignty is at issue — what happens when a nation disagrees with the global climate engineering of another country?
- If the wild guess about a solution is in any way incorrect, you could potentially create an even worse global climate catastrophe.
- The thought that geo-engineering is in any way controlled is delusion. If we had that level of control over the world's climate, we would have fixed the problem long ago.
Freeman Dyson has suggested bioengineering as a response to climate change: changing the DNA in plants so they use more CO2.
It seems obvious to me that to the extent anthropogenic CO2 is a problem, the only way we are going to be able to do anything about it is through geoengineering or bioengineering or something like that, because we sure as hell aren't going to stop using, or convince the world's 5 billion poor people to stop using, coal and other cheap, CO2 generating energy sources.
Plants have had roughly a billion years to get efficient at photosynthesis. We aren't likely to improve their genetics much that way.
I remember Freeman Dyson did have a scheme to increase CO2 removal by giving up plowing. If we plant seeds with a punch approach, we could leave all the old roots in the topsoil. If that worked to increase the organic matter in the topsoil, it would lock up that much more CO2. He calculated that this alone would make a great big difference. But he assumed that results from small test cases would extrapolate to the entire agricultural system.
Another idea is to distribute tiny particles of sulphur dioxide in the stratosphere. Circulating the globe, these whitish particles would reflect solar radiation, thus helping to prevent the planet's surface from warming.
A US scientist has even proposed erecting a mirrored sunshade in orbit that could cool the planet by a couple of degrees.
Such schemes were dismissed as ludicrous or desperate a few years ago, but are now starting to get a serious hearing as political efforts to reduce carbon emissions fall far short of what scientists say is needed.
Peter from Citi credit card Company.
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
January/February 2010
-
Cover Story
-
Dispatch
-
Feature
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE