Tovadang's List: Geoengineering

• proposed geoengineering techniques, which range from employing artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide from the air to spewing massive amounts of sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight.
• geoengineering approaches could prove a valuable "Plan B" for the planet in case sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions fail to stave off dangerous warming
• geoengineering approaches shouldn't supplant efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
• how and when to regulate geoengineering research and deployment is still an open question.
• could quickly affect large geographic areas

3 more annotations...

• politicians embracing technological hubris as an excuse for avoiding unpopular decisions to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
• haven't begun to resolve ethical, legal, or institutional issues. Such as who gets to be in charge of tinkering with the atmosphere, who funds the work, and who pays for damages in case of screw-ups.
• not close to knowing enough to be assured that geo-engineering wouldn't set off dreadful unintended consequences.
• a carefully drawn geo-engineering research program should be carried out
• as much as we would prefer not to, we might have to deploy geo-engineering as a last resort.
• A climate engineering analysis published this month by a University of Texas engineering professor and an American Enterprise Institute researcher concludes that all of the 21st century's projected global warming ... that's right, all of it ... could be offset by spending a mere $9 billion on ships that spray seawater mist into the atmosphere in order to thicken clouds that would redirect sunlight back to space.
• Pielke argues that the sea mist spraying proposal "is not well grounded in a realistic set of assumptions about how the global earth system actually works." Not enough is known about climate engineering to come up with cost-benefit analyses
• "The consequences of reflecting sunlight would almost certainly not be the same for all nations and peoples, thus raising legal, ethical, diplomatic, and national security concerns,"
• There may come a time when geo-engineering must be tried.
• Do the research, be on the lookout for unintended consequences, examine ethical and legal angles, and do it all in the open.
• Don't forget about reducing emissions or about adapting to climate change already in the pipeline.
• Finally, make damned sure no one jumps the gun and starts shooting at the clouds before we really know what we're doing.

10 more annotations...

• Intentionally messing with the world’s climate
• a growing number of strategies for blunting the ill effects of global warming. Proponents argue it may be needed as a third option. Cutting emissions of greenhouse gases (mitigation) and preparing to live in a world with an altered climate (adaptation) are already much discussed.
• Any attempts to manipulate Earth’s climate would entail many risks. Even those who favor research say many types of geoengineering should only be used in a worst-case scenario, if abrupt and severe climate change demanded a drastic response.

• Some measures involve so-called solar radiation management – slightly dimming the amount of sunlight reaching Earth to create a cooling effect that would cancel out global warming from greenhouse gases. These ideas include shooting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere or creating “microbubbles” in ocean water that would act as giant mirrors to reflect more sunlight back into space.

  “Artificial trees” could absorb CO2 just as real trees do and store it underground. Or perhaps real tree species would be genetically altered to be super efficient CO2 suckers.

  One idea, seeding the world’s ocean with iron particles to promote the growth of CO2-gobbling algae, has become an early example of how unintended problems could arise. A new study shows that adding iron may favor growth of a type of algae that is toxic to humans.

• Some argue that even researching geoengineering is unethical. They say that learning how to employ such measures will only ensure that they will be used someday – without a real understanding of the unintended consequences.

  Rogue nations might act on their own. Countries in the developing world are likely to have the least say in what geoengineering techniques are employed, while suffering from any ill effects. Who will decide what geoengineering is done and what isn’t?
• Scientists working on geoengineering ideas insist they should only be used hand in hand with cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, not as a substitute. But opponents worry that geoengineering will be seen as a cop-out, a way to continue profligate coal and oil burning, with geoengineering supplying an easy future fix.
• difficulty of agreeing on limits to greenhouse-gas emissions
• Countries will have different priorities, wishing for more or less rainfall, more or less warming, more or less willingness to take risks.
• a geoengineering treaty could be a tough sell as well.
• Because the effects of geoengineering could be unpredictable and variable, improved conditions in some parts of the world could be accompanied by worse conditions elsewhere.
• Short of a true international treaty, a group of leading scientific nations – the United States, Japan, China, India, Russia, Brazil, and European countries – might join to craft an agreement on how to research and how to test geoengineering.
• t’s better to determine the best ideas and carefully test them, in order to make implementing geoengineering – if that ever becomes necessary – as low-risk as possible.

10 more annotations...

• how feasible are they?
• proposed technological fixes for staving off global warming
• While most of the world fixates on how to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere, scientists and engineers worldwide are working on various geoengineering technologies – many of which are highly theoretical – to mitigate global warming and its effects. Many scientists oppose using new technology to fix problems created by old technology, but others view it as a quick and relatively inexpensive way to help solve our most vexing environmental problem.
• One theory for reducing global warming involves deflecting heat away from the Earth’s surface using satellites with movable reflectors or injecting sunlight-deflecting particles high in the atmosphere. Computer models suggest that blocking 8 percent of the sun’s earthbound radiation would effectively counteract the warming effect of our CO2 pollution.
• The idea was inspired by the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions – such as Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 – that blasted sulfate particles into the stratosphere. These particles reflect part of the sun’s radiation back into space, reducing the amount of heat that reaches the atmosphere.
• While the cost of many of these so-called geoengineering fixes would not necessarily be prohibitive in light of the cost of transforming our global energy economy, the risks of unintended consequences weigh heavily on even the researchers proposing them.
• toying with poorly understood complex systems
• high environmental risk
• “Is it better to let the Greenland ice sheet collapse and let the polar bears drown their way to extinction, or to spray some sulphur particles in the stratosphere?”

7 more annotations...

• a last resort if other efforts fail
• by emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases, human activity is already resetting Earth's thermostat.
• Climate scientists say that a warming of several degrees Celsius worldwide is very likely this century.
• To counter the ill effects of such rapid warming, political leaders are trying to forge agreements to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases, often called "climate mitigation."
• Governments are also beginning to look at ways to adapt to living in a warmer world, with its other possible effects such as changes in rainfall patterns (droughts and floods), more intense storms, and rising sea levels.
• when discussing modifying Earth's climate, most scientists strongly emphasize two points: Such schemes should be attempted only after careful consideration and only as a last resort if disastrous climate changes begin to be felt. And they should never be a substitute for reducing emissions.
• "There is no reason for the governments or peoples of most of Africa, Asia, and Latin America to trust that the governments, industries, or scientists of the biggest carbon-emitting states will protect their interests."

• Plans to modify the world's climate fall into two basic categories: One approach would reduce the amount of sunlight taken in by Earth and its atmosphere – sometimes called Solar Radiation Management (SRM). About 70 percent of sunlight is absorbed by Earth and its atmosphere, while the remaining 30 percent is reflected back into space. If just 1 percent more sunlight were reflected, Earth would cool by a measurable amount.

  Other ideas concern removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, directly offsetting carbon dioxide emissions.
• the best-known sun-blocking concept involves lacing the upper atmosphere with particles of sulfur to make it more reflective
• In 1991, for example, Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted, sending plumes of sulfates and other particles high into the atmosphere, which reflected more sunlight back into space. The resulting condition cooled Earth by about 1 degree F. for the next year. A little more than a century earlier, an even more massive eruption of the Krakatoa volcano in Indonesia probably had an even larger effect on world temperatures. Depending on how long it continues, the volcanic eruption in Iceland will doubtless have a similar effect.
• Mimicking this "volcano effect" could produce rapid cooling, although sulfur particles would have to be sent into the atmosphere on a regular basis to maintain the effect. If the program had to be discontinued, the cooling effect would quickly wear off and warming would spike upward.
• Because SRM options don't actually remove CO2 from the air, they also don't address global warming's so-called evil twin: ocean acidification. As levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rise, more CO2 is absorbed by oceans, making them more acidic. If acid levels rise enough, coral reefs and shellfish could die off. Eventually, the entire oceanic food chain could be threatened.
• All geoengineering fixes present the possibility of unexpected problems
• Each solution will have downsides
• daring to go in and change the climate is something that someone has to be very cautious and careful and humble about,
• Efforts to regulate how geo­engineering would be tested – let alone employed – are in their infancy
• unscrupulous research might go on "in the shadows,

15 more annotations...

• Geoengineering techniques aim to slow global warming through the use of human-made changes to the Earth’s land, seas or atmosphere.
• new research shows that the use of geoengineering to do environmental good may cause other environmental harm.
• potentially dangerous at the global scale, where the risks outweigh the benefits.
• “The bigger the scale of the approach, the riskier it is for the environment,” said session organizer Robert Jackson, director of Duke University’s Center on Global Change.
• Global alterations of Earth’s natural cycles have too many uncertainties to be viable with our current level of understanding,
• despite its potential to create overall cooling, atmospheric seeding could cause significant changes in localized temperature and precipitation. Her simulations predict that sulfur seeding could destroy atmospheric ozone, leading to increased ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
• fertilizing the oceans with iron to increase carbon uptake from the atmosphere. Charles Miller of Oregon State University said that ocean fertilization could create a rise in iron-limited phytoplankton populations, which by dying and sinking would use enough oxygen to create extensive dead zones in the oceans.
• In addition, he said, the maximum possible rate of ocean iron fertilization could only offset a small fraction of the current rate of carbon burning by humans.
• Ocean fertilization also does not alleviate the increasing problem of ocean acidification, caused by carbon dioxide from the increasingly carbon-rich atmosphere dissolving into seawater
• ocean fertilization schemes will likely exacerbate this problem.
• apparent hazards at the global scale
• research should continue on safer ways to use geoengineering at a smaller scale
• n the planetary scale, most ecologists are skeptical of climate engineering.
• “Playing with the Earth’s climate is a dangerous game with unclear rules,” said Jackson. “We need more direct ways to tackle global warming, including energy efficiency, reduced consumption, and investment in renewable energy sources.”

12 more annotations...

• Geoengineering schemes are being proposed
• trying to avoid a climate crisis that many people think will arise if we don’t do something about it.
• geoengineering, using technology to manipulate climate on a global scale
• deliberately cool a warming planet.
• The scheme that’s the most talked about is one whereby aerosols, or small particulate matter, would be poured into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight away.
• compared this geoengineering scheme to what volcanoes do naturally. They shoot particles that reflect sunlight high into the stratosphere. But she said the artificially sprayed particles could bring on new problems.
• consequences that could include damage to the ozone layer, could include increased pollution down at ground level, and could include changes to the Earth’s weather and climate systems that we don’t even know yet how to anticipate.
• a safer bet would be to paint the roofs of the world’s buildings white. A study found white roofs could offset the carbon emissions of all 600 million of the world’s cars for 18 to 20 years.
• think through these schemes and their potential consequences really carefully before implementing them, recognizing that some could be reasonable, whereas others are way too risky.
• main thrust of the geoengineering proposals is to reduce the amount of warming. Some fof them are aimed at decreasing how much radiation comes into the system.
• Because almost all of the radiation that comes into the Earth’s atmosphere system is coming in from the sun, it’s called solar radiation. The one primary scheme being thought of to reduce the amount of sunlight that comes in to Earth is to use satellite technology and put a shield out in outer space, blocking some of the sunlight from getting in.
• geoengineering schemes to decrease how much radiation goes out.
• better way of reflecting at the surface would be instead to put a reflective covering over a building that humans have already built.

11 more annotations...

• The oceans are complex, dynamic, unpredictable and already vulnerable to the effects of climate change and acidification. We need mechanisms that will build their resilience, not undermine it. ...We don't need quick fixes to this global problem that may, in the long-term, cause far more harm than good."
• track record of massive-scale environmental interventions is not an encouraging one.
• our efforts have frequently been revealed in hindsight to be so overrun with unintended consequences as to become full-blown disasters, often disasters worse than the original problems we set out to solve. And, in general, the cost of our errors has tended to increase with the magnitude of the attempted solution.
• • that money could be put to making the switch to clean energy instead of putting effort into an unpredictable experiment
• the downsides of a societal effort to change our land use, adopt clean energy, redesign for energy efficiency and tax waste are minimal, and probably out-weighed by the overall societal benefits.
• Governments which are incapable of mustering the political will to seriously reduce emissions are not to be trusted to make responsible decisions about mega-engineering projects at a planetary scale. The chances of getting it profoundly wrong -- through negligence or greed -- are just too great.
• require budgets in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars
• money tends to make people less willing to admit it when things go wrong... and with schemes like these, if things went wrong, they could go wrong in massive and unpredictable ways.

6 more annotations...