More Climate Scientists Now Support Geoengineering

ofcourseyouare writes "The Independent is a UK newspaper which has been pushing hard for cuts in CO2 emissions for years. It recently polled a group of 'the world's leading climate scientists,' revealing a 'growing support for geoengineering' in addition to cutting CO2 — not as a substitute. For example, Jim Lovelock, author of The Gaia Theory, comments: 'I disagree that geoengineering the climate is a dangerous distraction and I disagree that on no account should it ever be considered. I strongly agree that we now need a "plan B" where a geoengineering strategy is drawn up in parallel with other measures to curb CO2 emissions.' Professor Kerry Emanuel of MIT said, 'While a geoengineering solution is bound to be less than desirable, the probability of getting global agreement on emissions reductions before it is too late is very small.'"

Comments

Just brilliant

[ErikTheRed]

I mean, the way I usually go around getting people to give me deeply considered answers is to do a poll. How many of these scientists actually thought the question through? How many actually have enough expertise and experience to make their responses meaningful even if they had thought it through.

Seriously, is this science or fucking American Idol?!?

With any poll, you also have to consider who commissioned the poll, who implemented it, what the agendas are, etc. Because nobody does this shit for free, and there's always an angle.

Re:So wait

[budgenator]

Adding Fe to fertilize the algae, causes the algae to consume the dissolved CO2 in the water, so your argument is nonsensical. Fertilizing the algae will not only not effect the mount of CO2 absorbed by the seawater from the air, but will reduce the amount of CO2 in the water.

Re:Substitute? Sounds good

[bnenning]

The only choice is whether to (1) run headlong into disaster (which I predict is a good description of mankind will actually do); (2) minimize the impact; or (3) counterbalance the impact. You can't simply rule out (3) on a vague generality.

Thank you. Yes, we should obviously be *very* cautious with stuff like this, but I really don't understand the prevailing opinion that it's Just Wrong. I suspect many people consider the environment to be a moral issue rather than a practical one, so any solution that doesn't require us to make substantial sacrifices is "cheating".

Re:What Could go Wrong?

[williamhb]

Great. Geoengineering. Us trying to "solve" a natural problem. Can you say "rabbits in Australia?" Everytime we try one of these "solutions" the result is trouble. I would be agreeable to letting the scientists play geoengineers if they agree to let us violently kill them WHEN it fucks things up even worse.

Actually, not every time. The introduction of the cactoblastis moth to Australia, to deal with prickly pear, was very successful. But I'm not so keen on the modern attempts at geoengineering -- dumping gazillions of tons of chemicals into a chaotic system without any chance of running a realistic trial first (only a simulation that by definition can only deal with known variables), and where you haven't got a spare atmosphere if you muck this one up.

Re:So this is how it ends...

[dasunt]

Maybe there don't have to be any unnatural deaths, just less births. All life requires energy to exist. The human race tripled in size over the 72 years between 1927 and 1999. Where has the energy come from to enable that to happen ? Fossil fuels. Stored energy which we have used to establish ourselves as masters of the planet. But when those fossil fuels run out, or they cause the climate to change (meaning we can't use them), then the numbers of humans must re-adjust to the available energy. Unless you want to live in a world like a cube farm.

I ran the numbers the other day for uranium extraction from sea water, the refresh rate of uranium due to erosion, and the energy produced by a fast breeder reactor using a natural uranium isotope mix.

We could produce double the energy output of the earth currently for tens of thousands of years with current technology without lowering the uranium content in seawater below 25%.