Ken Caldeira is a climate scientist who recently ended up on Rolling Stone’s list of “100 People Who are Changing America.” To be correct, Caldeira’s contemplating changing the atmosphere. He advocates furthering research on geoengineering – intentionally altering Earth’s climate.
Caldeira admits that geoengineering is a very risky endavor, and not something we would try without very good reason. But he told me that the threat of a climate crisis – such as worldwide famine – looms larger every day, as the world continues to delay taking major action to cut emissions. “So we need to ask ourselves, if we did confront a climate crisis, what would be our emergency response plan?” Caldeira said.
A climate emergency response plan isn’t as easy as pointing out the exit signs in your building. Creating a means to cool down the climate – even temporarily – is fraught with potential for unintended consequences. Caldeira has been creating climate models to see what would happen if humans were to to shoot sulfur dust into the atmosphere, mimicking a volcano eruption. He said the models show that this scheme would turn down the global temperature, but there is no way that scientists can imagine or enter into the model every possible bad effect (see the “cat effect” on Macquarie Island).
So what Caldeira thinks we should conduct what he calls, “small scale field tests.” This would allow scientists to see how these geoengineering proposals actually interact with the environment. Yet he said it may be “politically risky” to suggest advance research. Indeed, John Holdren, Obama’s scientific advisor, found himself in hot water last week, when he mentioned in an interview that we should consider geoengineering schemes. Both Holdren and Caldeira emphasize that geoengineering is no substitute for serious work on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, and should only be considered in a desperate situation.
I asked Caldeira if geoengineering needs a scientific consensus, much like the consensus on climate change itself. He gave me a mixed answer: In some ways, geoengineering may be effective because it doesn’t require everyone on the planet to change their practices – instead, perhaps a consensus between government leaders. “It’s much easier to deploy from a practical point of view, even though it’s more scary,” Caldeira said.
But on the other hand, Caldeira added, it’s possible that one country may essentially decide to “go at it alone” to alter the climate. Such an action could be unbelievably disastrous, especially if the science behind it has not been confirmed.
As scary as geoengineering and the implications are, if we have the means to alter the climate, research and a regulatory framework are necessary. Caldeira seemed to imply that we’ve already made an important choice. He said, “We need a discussion of how we handle the global commons – do we see our future as one where we learn to live in harmony with the natural geochemical cycles and the natural climate system? Or are humans going to dominate planet and alter it for our own ends? The second path seems to be the one we’re heading down and it’s extremely risky.”
Image Credit: davidicke.com
Lindsay, did he say what he meant by ‘small scale field test?’
Tough to imagine!
A “small scale field test” means testing these geoengineering schemes in the atmosphere, albeit on a smaller scale than we would use to deploy the technology in a climate emergency. I’m sorry to use the word in the definition, but it seems from my conversation with Caldeira, and other discussions around the web, that there isn’t a solid definition yet. There needs to be more discussion on what kind of field tests need to be done, and what the parameters would be. But first, we would need a consensus that field tests should be done. Lots of difficult questions!
I would not be surprised if this will put more CO2 in the atmosphere negating the coolness it was supose to bring. My second beef is that it attacks a problem that not every scientist agrees is happening.Imagine attacking a problem only to find out that the problem is mainly a phenonom that happens naturaly.
Danger, Danger, Danger!
Andrew Revkin has a fun video and a more serious statement on geoengineering from the American Meteorological Society on his blog: Watch and read it here.
The A.M.S. echoes similar sentiments from Caldeira and Holdren: No one wants to think about geoengineering, and developing the capabilities to alter the climate could become a very slippery slope. But they cautiously advise that research should be done, alongside development of policy options. The statement concludes:
I would not be surprised if the eruption of the Earth Volcanos like Mt. Redoubt have put more SUN reflecting chemicals than Obama could ever do and at a cheaper price.
The world’s emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China’s coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. –Reuters, 26 June 2008
Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:
“The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not “may be coal-fired”; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence.” –”Breaking the Climate Deadlock,” Tony Blair, June 26, 2008
But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide — a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. “Beware of the scale,” he stressed.”
“I’m going to tell you something I probably shouldn’t: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot.” –Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008
“The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state.” –Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
I have a project that will qualify as a geoengineering. It is a proposal to encapsulate the plastic in the North Pacific Gyre. It will result in minimizing marine contact with toxic chemicals (PCB), naturally sequester carbon dioxide and ultimately resore commercial fisheries in an ocean region that is currently underproductive.
Jim, I have a program to also clean up the pacific gyere. It cleans up the plastics and provides energy. I want to get it to the fore front. The Kaisai project in San Fran has a pretty good study along with scripts, and noaa. I represent a non profit organization that has intrest in helping with the clean up.
This is the very definition of insanity. We don’t have a clue as to the variables, much less their interaction with each other. It is a way to throw away piles of taxpayer money and take yet more personal liberty. Whatever effect we might have will end as soon as the moronic program ends.
By the way, Jim, the plastic in the Pacific doesn’t have any PCB’s in it. PCB is an acronym for poly chrlorinated biphenyl. The only plastic we use that contains any chlorine is PVC, which is a long way from a biphnyl.
The plastic in the gyre is not made of or from PCB. Rather it is attracted to the plastic and is thus concentrated to extremely high levels to be consumed by marine life.
jim – tried your number without success; call me at 207-240-4019. Sunday, 5/17
Lyn