In virtually every geoengineering approach some populations benefit while others suffer. Studies suggest efforts to increase the planet's albedo by infusing the upper atmosphere with sulfur could expose hundreds of millions of people, mostly in the tropics, to drought as rainfall and river flow patterns change.
"Eight billion people may be better off while one billion people may be worse off. That's an interesting moral dilemma," Bunzl said. After the Pinatubo eruption, researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research found large changes in rainfall and river patterns in many regions, especially the tropics. The 1783-84 eruption of Laki fissure in Iceland altered the Asian and African monsoons sufficiently to trigger famine in Africa, India and Japan.
"It's a problem, but I don't consider it a killer objection," Bunzl added. "I don't mean to be trivial, but there's a lot of detail: How much worse would they be? Are there any offsetting efforts you could make? And many, many other issues."
[In October the International Food Policy Research Institute released a report finding that, if nothing changes, some crop yields in the developing world could be half of their 2000 levels by 2050.]
And that perhaps is the primary concern about geoengineering: Any tinkering will likely beget problems that will beget more tinkering and so on until a complex and ultimately indigestible casserole of solutions is in place. Once an effort begins, even opponents may be hard-pressed to justify abandonment, as failure to keep a geoengineering mask in place could lead to even more rapid and disastrous warming. "There are no magical silver bullets," Victor said.
Nearly all the geophysical analysis to date has focused on simple geoengineering options, such as tuning the planetary albedo, that are unlikely to be deployed in practice. A more realistic geoengineering mask, Victor added, will likely be extremely complex: Albedo modification along with active efforts to offset ecological side effects, ocean acidification and other harms that a simple primary geoengineering system cannot rectify.
Wrapped up in that dilemma is a central question: Who sets the thermostat?
"My biggest fear is that we're getting into the controls of the planet," said Calgary's Keith, "where one part of the world wants to run the planet different than another.
"If one tweaks the knob a different way than another - or adds one knob atop another - it could be a real disaster."
But society is already elbow-deep in various planetary controls, Keith noted. Atmospheric carbon is nearing a level not seen since the Arctic was ice-free and alligators roamed Northern California. Invasive species are running roughshod over entire ecosystems. Genetically modified plants produce biofuels and more robust food crops.
"There are few places you can walk around on this planet that don't bear a very heavy hand of humanity," said Keith.
"That's not to say we should do more (engineering), but you need to have some perspective."
In this light, Bunzl and Keith don't worry so much about the consequences of geoengineering. It is really just a stop-gap, Bunzl said - something to buy at most 50 years' of time to decarbonize the economy.
The real worry, they say, is what happens if society fails to cut emissions and has no way to buffer the planet from the effects of all that gas.
"We face a fork in the road," Bunzl said. "We have to decarbonize. We can decarbonize with the option to geoengineer, or we can decarbonize without the option."
"It's far from obvious - and that's putting it politely - to think that we'll have clean energy in the amounts needed on the timetable envisioned by China and India," he said.
"We're going to face a crisis on international governance on who does what."
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentHow is it that such articles totally overlook the technology of sequestering CO2 using biomass pyrolysis. The technique is now proven and only requires more investment to be applied on a worldwide scale! See the technical pages of www.eprida.com for details. Basically, the technique takes any wet or dry biomass, such as swerage sludge and converts it to biofuels and organic fertiliser which remain active in the soil for centuries or even millenia. This is how atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuels are eliminated, and how climate change can be reversed. But to do so, we must build 5,000,000 pyrolysis retorts, a goal that is easily accessable when compared to the number of cars existing in the world...Everything is ready except the will of the Copenhagen negociators...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it that we assume climate change to be a bad thing? How much area is currently useless to human beings because of ice? How many arid places would see additional rainfall due to increased water in the atmosphere due to increased evaporation caused by warming? Why is there almost no research into the positive aspects of global warming and climate change and how we can use these changes to benefit us? And finally - doesn't the climate change argument itself assume that the causes are man made? Does this not already represent geoengineering despite it's "accidental" nature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. Hubris indeed. The idea of scientists (and/or politicians) wanting to control the planet as described is truly frightening. Their misplaced faith in their complicated and incomplete climate models is remarkable; especially considering that our weather/climate system is a chaotic one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would appreciate it if SA would be focus more on the scientific problems associated with the anthropogenic global warming theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Planetary Engineering" will be the biggest, and maybe the last, mistake mankind makes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm all for science and science fiction, but actually spending money on the former to realize our fantasies of power over Nature expressed in the latter; I beg not. I can't agree more with candide. It will take even more resources and generate more waste to implement such fools' errands than we may or may not be inflicting via our fossil fuel habits now. Ironically, such measures will actually encourage these habits if they are even possible. With no incentive to actually live in sync with our home, we over extend our hubris even further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't think of a worse use of federal money and/or our political focus.
This whole "greenhouse" spoof reminds me of the Chicken Little parable about the pending disaster of the sky falling...With about as much proof! SA needs to go back to Science and let the politicians find other ways of getting wealthy without them...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Rachael Carson's Book "The Sea Around Us", she explains that we are currently in a 900 year warm cycle that will end in 2300AD. The last cold low occurred in 1400 AD. She cites studies that confirm these 900 year cycles going back to around 3000BC that were supported by sun spot and tree ring data. The last warm high occurred around 500AD. Perhaps we should read and research the available data before we move to declare a world wide panic. I may not be a world famous scientist but I doubt that anything we do here on earth will effect the sun spot cycle patterns. We should be concerned about our planet's health, but a cool head will plan better for the next high point in 2300 than a panicked group of individuals trying to flounder around attempting to set a political direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder why there is no mentiong of atmospheric carbon capture in this article. I'm not referring to on-site CCS, which would have a net effect on reducing the excess carbon from the air. This is 300 billion metric tonnes, or the equivalent of four Mount Rainiers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless we can find a way to safely remove this burden on the world's climate, we haven't a prayer of keeping global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
And 2 C, as we're beginning to learn, may even be too dangerous a level.
'The Thermodynamic Razor states that all earth-alone energy exchanges result in a net eco-degradation. This means no nonsolar tech can be a net problem solver.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee my Aug posting at: http://my.ecoearth.info/ where this assertion is proved.
Well, after listening to republicans all day, I'm going to side with them. Support global warming. This species needs to lose a gigantic percentage of its population, at any cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, there's no proof that the greenhouse effect works. I think we should all get our scientific perspective from politicians. F'n stupid species deserves every last bit of death it gets.
We may not have to worry. China (plus US) puts particulate matter into the atmosphere (via coal consumption) at a rate that may couteract global warming!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor all of those that embrace warmer climate, I want to remind you that more CO2 means more acid in oceans. Higher temperatures also mean more ice removed from glaciers, which means higher oceans and more people migrating out of their homes because of flooding. Mountaineous glaciers disappearing mean less water for humans, animals and plants to use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is that humans have polluted the skies with too much of CO2 and effects of that are dominantly bad. So the best solution is to limit and sequester that CO2 as soon as possible as much as possible. Any delay just makes it more expensive in the future, due to accumulating worsening of the environment.
My sides hurt now from laughing at this column. Douglas is this a joke or have you lost your mind?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you were to go by the facts http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt you would find that global temperatures have been trending down for over a decade now while Co2 diametrically continues to rise. It doesnt even take a dog catcher to determine that there is no correlation of Co2 to temperature. Unfortunately, miss-information rues the day for the ulterior motives of those who perpetuate this hoax.
If the gullible Drones could think for themselves they would realize that NONE of the gloom and doom predictions of the 1980s and 1990s have come to pass. The man-made global warming theory is falling apart faster than you can say iceberg. Dont be the last one standing.
@Dugetit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do indeed get it. Did you even look to the bottom line of the undifferentiated data on the link you provided, that you use to justify your ... um ... well, I'll be generous and call it an 'opinion'? Almost every trend is UP, UP , UP! So, please, (most of) the audience here is going to be quite immune to such ham-fisted misdirection.
But in any case, I also 'get it' with respect to your disingenuous tactics: you do what so many deniers and sceptics do: selectively cherry pick a small range within a dataset, and use any minor anomaly to trumpet the joys of fiddling while Rome burns.
Think, fellow human: if you are wrong and we go on merrily business as usual, people - possibly millions of us - will die. Possibly your own children and grandchildren will live lives of unimaginable hardship. They will erect a precautionary monument to you with a plaque that reads: my great-grandpa did this to us.
If the climate change believers are wrong, yet we have instigated all the required changes, we will nevertheless have a more just and equitable global community, and a sustainable future as a species of perhaps many more millenia.
Choose your path. Choose YESTERDAY! Choose wisely.
I find myself sitting in the middle of a see-saw. Sometimes I think I want to crawl toward the side of the scientists, who are actually paid to tell us things about our planet (and ourselves). What they tell us is that we are on the brink of extinction. Humanity has never seen the Earth this warm before. And if we do nothing, it will only get worse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen I turn my head and look at the other side. I see all the global warming denyers. Granted, most of them are misinformed by those who have a vested interest in oil, and the status quo. They are so violent in their opposition. They are so numerous. And they are unbelievably stupid. And I find myself wondering why I would want to save them.
But then, when I begin crawling toward that side, I realize it would be suicide. And I don't believe in suicide.
So I will push. I will push for cleaner energy. I will push for cleaner air and water. I will push for better education. And I will push for all like minded people to do the same. We are all in this together.
What if CO2 is not the cause of warming? What if it is gravity variations. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/27343303/Gravity-Causes-Climate-Change. Since there is excess GHGs, CO2 and WV in the air, then why doesn't the GHE use this excesss instead of waiting for man to add more CO2? The IPCC CO2 causes more warming analysis is a fraud. It mis applies the Greenhouse effect by ignoring that all the available photons are already in use and adding more GHGs can not absorb more photons if there are no more photons to absorb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn that case the cost of all this geoengineering is wasted. and reducing the amount of CO2 will probably make it harder for plants to produce food.
Dear JDoddsGW,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really need to read more widely. Might I suggest Google Scholar. Go to any Google search page, look up the top, pull down the 'More' tab and click on Google Scholar. Enter your search terms: might I suggest "global warming". Read. Learn. Come back here in six months.
mankind can do better by co existing with nature than confronting : Mankind is a sub set within the set (nature) and needs to realize this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScary, scary stuff...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould I perhaps persuade you to go the other way? Sequester carbon, treat water - you know: the clean way?
No?
Oh, well.
Then let's keep injecting crap into the air and water. No. No no no, you're right! Let's find MORE and BETTER crap to inject by the shiploads into the air and water. I can't think of a better way to finally kill off ALL politicians. Everything else has failed so far, so go for it!
There can be quite a lot facts undetermined about climate change,all the effort done is just quenching the fire of a cartload of firewood with a cup of water. As for cliamte change, it's a natural process during the development of earth, maybe human beings ourselves were a result of it. No use resisting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this