Antinuclear

The pitfalls of geo-ingineering as a climate change solution

Chilling Out Globally, Craig K Comstock, 2 Apr 13 “…….A sulfur compound injected into the middle atmosphere would mimic a massive volcanic eruption, which is known to reduce the mean surface temperature.

Geo-engineering is what humans could do after they’ve been unable to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases adequately or are afraid to try or feel that a reduction is not “cost-effective.” ….

Clive Hamilton, in Earthmasters, brings the story up to date, with a special focus on ethics. In Australia, where he lives, Hamilton is branded as a public intellectual, which means he shares his extensive knowledge not only with his colleagues but with the educated public. A skeptic about humans, Hamilton called his prior book, Requiem for a Species, which devoted part of chapter 6 to geo-engineering, the subject of the entire new book…..

Most climate scientists prefer reducing the emission of greenhouse gases to any form of geo-engineering, but this isn’t happening (except as a result of economic recession). Fossil fuel firms warn that reducing emissions might wreck the economy, depressing the standard of living. So the carbon builds up, and geo-engineering waits as the potential savior.

Why not just do it? Let’s run through several difficulties.

First, by definition we don’t know what unintended consequences would emerge if, for example, humans were to spray tons of a sulfur compound into the stratosphere. In medical terms, the cure might be disastrously worse than the disease. Serious engineers and financiers judged the chances were vanishingly low for an explosion of the Challenger, the near-collapse of the U.S. financial system, or the multiple problems at Fukushima Daiichi.

Second, stopping some of the sun’s radiation from reaching the earth would do nothing to reduce the acidification of the oceans, which like warming, is a product of carbon emissions.

Third, once this sulfur shield were created, it would have to be renewed: while CO2 persists for centuries, the sulfur lasts only a few years. If after a while the spraying stopped for any reason, the global temperature would quickly rise, perhaps too quickly for the survival of some plants and animals.

Fourth, we have no international protocol specifying who can decide to spray the sulfur. If such a momentous decision could be negotiated, why not negotiate a reduction of emissions?

Fifth, to whom would nations complain if they felt disadvantaged by the results of sulfur spraying, who would judge their cases, what standards would apply, and who would pay damages? For example, what if there were a failure of monsoons and other rainfall needed for crops?

Sixth, and perhaps most seductive, if geo-engineering were done pre-emptively, a bridge to the development and introduction of sustainable energy as cheap as natural gas or coal, would it not simply replace what it was meant to introduce? Even if methods of cheap low-carbon energy were invented, they would still have to be built as the new infrastructure…..

Seventh, is geo-engineering not just the latest Promethean project, when what we need is systems that Hamilton calls “Soterian”? This is his verbal coinage from the name of Sotera, the Greek god of “safety, preservation, and deliverance from harm.” President Nixon said the solution to any failures of technology is more technology. Hamilton argues that is the wrong path…. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-k-comstock/chilling-out-globally_b_2995260.html

April 3, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change - global warming