Institute of Physics: Time to lift the geoengineering taboo

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.iop.org/News/news_36612.html

Time to lift the geoengineering taboo

Institute of Physics News

1 September 2009

In Septembers’s issue of Physics World . . .

Hot on the heels of the Royal Society’s Geoengineering the Climate report, September’s Physics World contains feature comment from UK experts stressing the need to start taking geoengineering – deliberate interventions in the climate system to counteract man-made global warming – more seriously.

Of increased importance, as policy makers and politicians prepare to negotiate binding carbon emission targets at December’s United Nation’s Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen (CoP15), many feel we need to come up with a plan B as climate mitigation appears to be too little too late.

Authors Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter, and Hazel Jeffrey, head of strategic management at the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council, who were both involved in the Royal Society’s new report but writing independently for Physics World, examine the potentials of different geoengineering initiatives.

Different schemes for both direct carbon-dioxide removal, such as fertilising the ocean with a nutrient such as iron to enhance the oceanic carbon sink, and solar-radiation management through, for example, brightening the clouds have different benefits, costs and risks associated.

What sounds like sci-fi could be a crucial alternative to common mitigation, which, even if carbon emission should be cut by as much as 50% by 2050, is unlikely to keep global warming below two degrees this century.

While more research needs to be done to ascertain the risks and effectiveness associated with these large-scale interventions in the climate system, many geoengineering strategies have a better benefit-to-cost ratio than conventional mitigation methods.

Neither costs nor practicality might be the real reasons behind climate scientists’ reluctance to embrace geoengineering, as Cox and Jeffrey highlight, “The primary reason there has been so little debate about geoengineering amongst climate scientists is concern that such a debate would imply an alternative to reducing the human carbon footprint.”

…

[XemaSab]

1. I think the likelihood that we would foul up some critical process

GROSSLY outweighs the possibility that we would "fix" ACC.

[phantom power]

2. It would be easy to make a mistake.

For instance, we might easily slip up and melt the polar caps, or acidify the oceans and dissolve the bottom of the food chain, or touch off a methane release from the ocean floor, or set off a mass extinction.

:hide:

[RC]

3. After the mass extinction, the Earth would recover without us.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. What makes you so confident?

Do you really believe that it is impossible for us to screw the ecosystem up so badly that it cannot recover?

Time to watch the Sorcerer's Apprentice again…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XChxLGnIwCU

[One_Life_To_Give]

25. Permanent Screwup would be difficult

I can't tnhink of much we could do nature given a few million years wouldn't easily get beyond. Nevermind the time between now and when the Sun incinerates the planet.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. OK, so let’s be farfetched here for a moment

Let’s imagine some sort of autonomous, solar-powered nanotechnology, capable of reproduction.

It’s intended to capture and sequester carbon. I dunno, let’s say it converts it to diamond for the sake of long-term stability.

Unfortunately in its zeal, it removes far too much CO2 from the atmosphere. Deprived of sufficient greenhouse gases, the Earth turns into an icebox…


(I've invested several seconds of thought into that scenario… ;-) )

[XemaSab]

4. Shut the hell up.

:P

[phantom power]

8. Decisions, decisions...

Allow me to tell you a story.

10 years ago, my wife had some surgery on her spinal chord to "debulk" some tumors. The surgery worked as planned: her back pain was cured, and nerve damage from the partial resection was extremely minimal.

Last year, the pain came back, and we discovered that the tumors had grown back, larger than before. The neurosurgeon sat us down and told us that this time around the best option was to go for "radical resection." To a neurosurgeon that means "I'm gonna get 100% of those tumors out no matter how much nerve tissue I have to fuck with." He then explained that each time he moved a nerve, there was about a 50/50 chance of breaking it. He went on to explain that he was absolutely going to be moving a lot of nerves around, but he couldn't know how many until he did the job. There was a 15% chance of total paralysis from the waist down, including incontinence.

Well that was terrifying. But the alternative was a 100% chance of paralysis from the waist down, including incontinence, along with unbearable pain that would never end and could not be treated.

That surgery was really rough. The recovery was a lot harder than I imagined, even after having gone through the first time. My wife will not ever be the same. She's lost some muscle function and sensation. It's been a real blow to her self esteem. The surgery left her with chronic nerve pain that can only be treated with specialized drugs, so we are now intimately dependent on health insurance for the rest of our life. She went back to her job, but I'm not completely sure that's going to work out in the long run.

But she can walk, and the pain can be treated, and the tumors are gone now.

So we all definitely ought to be afraid of terraforming. We'll fuck something up if we try it. But it still might be the least-shitty alternative someday.

[XemaSab]

11. I don't think your wife's situation is such a great analogy

To use the metaphor of a sick person, the planet is more like an obese smoker with a bad knee. They sit around and eat cheeseburgers and twinkies all day. There's a lot going on with this person: pre-diabetes, breathing problems, atherosclerosis, and all the associated problems that an unhealthy lifestyle can cause. The person has trouble getting exercise because of the bad knee, but the knee is bad because the person is obese. The doctor can go in and operate on the knee in the hopes that the person will become healthier once they are more comfortable walking, or the person can try to become healthier before the surgery in the hopes that the knee will feel better once the person is thinner.

In this analogy, the knee problems are climate change, and all our other environmental problems such as deforestation, overfishing, loss of habitat contiguity, air pollution, destruction of the seafloor, strip mining, and other forms of environmental destruction are the diabetes, heart problems, and so forth.

I am of the mind that the person in my example should try to get healthier before attempting surgery.

As far as the actual environment goes, I think we need a lifestyle change, and geoengineering seems like an excuse to keep going in our bad habits.

(Sorry your wife is having problems. :pals:)

[phantom power]

13. Oh, I would not want to see any terraforming projects starting, say, tomorrow...

It's more that I can imagine scenarios where it would become the reasonable choice. And that those scenarios may come to pass.

But sure, let's consider trying the "healthier lifestyle" analogy and see if it isn't too late.

:toast:

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Sorry - silly pedantry: terraforming -vs- geoengineering

“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming">Terraforming” (Earth-shaping) refers to making another planetary body like Earth.

As opposed to “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering">Geoengineering” (Earth-engineering) which means attempting to engineer the Earth itself.

[phantom power]

20. Yes, but I still like to use terraforming because it is funnier.

Because... "Wait -- now we've got to terraform the earth?"

Yes. Yes, we do, poppets.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Clearly, it is an allusion I am not "getting"

What is it to?

[phantom power]

23. No allusion this time. Just me cracking myself up.

For better or worse.

[hatrack]

6. Well, we've already dispensed with the "Don't Fill Your Nest With Shit" Taboo . . .

What the hell - why not?

:toast:

[phantom power]

14. You are the wind beneath my wings.

:patriot:

[Meeker Morgan]

7. I'd be more worried about them messing this up ...

... than about the effects of global warming itself.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Perhaps you're not worried enough about the effects of “global warming.”

This is a true dilemma.

From the OED:

dilemma, n.

1. In Rhetoric. A form of argument involving an adversary in the choice of two (or, loosely, more) alternatives, either of which is (or appears) equally unfavourable to him. (The alternatives are commonly spoken of as the ‘horns’ of the dilemma.) Hence in Logic, a hypothetical syllogism having a conjunctive or ‘conditional’ major premiss and a disjunctive minor (or, one premiss conjunctive and the other disjunctive).

…

2. Hence, in popular use: A choice between two (or, loosely, several) alternatives, which are or appear equally unfavourable; a position of doubt or perplexity, a ‘fix’.

…

In my opinion, continuing on our present course presents an unacceptable risk. On the other hand, any effort at geoengineering which is significant enough to have a positive effect on the situation presents a tremendous risk itself. (After all, if it's able to combat "climate change" then it must perforce be able to change the climate.)

In the end, I believe we may have no choice but to attempt geoengineering. If we are forced into it, don’t you think if would be better if we’ve researched it first!?

[Nihil]

15. Alternatively ...

... perhaps you are too optimistic about the odds of beneficial outcomes?
(Or maybe it is the optimism about the intentions that is misplaced?)

> In my opinion, continuing on our present course presents an unacceptable risk.

Totally agree.

> On the other hand, any effort at geoengineering which is significant enough
> to have a positive effect on the situation presents a tremendous risk itself.
> (After all, if it's able to combat "climate change" then it must perforce be
> able to change the climate.)

Also totally agree.

> If we are forced into <geoengineering>, don’t you think if would be better
> if we’ve researched it first!?

For a third time, I agree.

> In the end, I believe we may have no choice but to attempt geoengineering.

This is the "a miracle happens here" box though isn't it?

Considering that the FIRST thing that a half-way sentient civilisation
would be to reduce their output and that this is NOT happening - we have
still years & years of "discussion", "conferences", "further investigations"
and "confirmations" to go before we achieve a significant reduction - and
that the primary obstacle is the well-funded combined lobby of "we don't
want no stinkin' CO2 reduction" industries, the only way that "progress"
will be made is if said industries (and their tame politicians) can make
a quick profit.

The risk inherent in "making a quick profit" from geoengineering really
cannot be understated.

The first major problem is that it involves a stomping down on the accelerator
without changing course from the cliff-edge as to their minds, allowing the
new business opportunity of geo-engineering into the equation means that they
don't have to do anything on the "reduction" side.

The second major problem is that (regardless of your "better to have
researched it first" comment), the profit motive is, and always remains,
the driver behind such technologies. This does not bode well for reliable
scientific evaluation nor for the application of the precautionary principle.

The third major problem is that it is not currently possible to accurately
model (or predict with sufficient accuracy) the effects of scaling up a
laboratory-sized project in this field to an Earth-sized project.

I think we here are well aware of the issues of subtle differences in the
initial conditions of a chaotic system (even if the algorithm is 100% valid).
The penalty of such a failure with an Earth-sized implementation is most
definitely non-trivial.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Let me offer a different way to view things

…

Considering that the FIRST thing that a half-way sentient civilisation would be to reduce their output and that this is NOT happening - we have still years & years of "discussion", "conferences", "further investigations" and "confirmations" to go before we achieve a significant reduction - and that the primary obstacle is the well-funded combined lobby of "we don't want no stinkin' CO2 reduction" industries, the only way that "progress" will be made is if said industries (and their tame politicians) can make a quick profit.

The risk inherent in "making a quick profit" from geoengineering really cannot be understated.

…

I fully agree, in that I really don't want to do business with "GeoEngineering Inc." then again, I don't want to deal with their friends over at "Nukes 'R' Us" either. In either case, I think these things should be handled by "grown-ups" in government agencies.

For example, if we decided we needed to build more nuclear (fission) plants, I would like to see them built and operated by the DoE. If we decide we need to resort to GeoEngineering, I'd like to see the EPA in charge.

…

The first major problem is that it involves a stomping down on the accelerator without changing course from the cliff-edge as to their minds, allowing the new business opportunity of geo-engineering into the equation means that they don't have to do anything on the "reduction" side.

The second major problem is that (regardless of your "better to have researched it first" comment), the profit motive is, and always remains, the driver behind such technologies. This does not bode well for reliable scientific evaluation nor for the application of the precautionary principle.

…

These are excellent reasons not to allow "GeoEngineering Inc." to get the "Save the Earth" contract. I don't want to see the "profit motive" at work. We've seen all too well what the result of runaway capitalism is.

However, I don't believe these are good reasons to prevent the EPA from doing research.

…

The third major problem is that it is not currently possible to accurately model (or predict with sufficient accuracy) the effects of scaling up a laboratory-sized project in this field to an Earth-sized project.

…

This too is true. Currently, there is great question about our ability to accurately model the climate change project now underway. However, I don't see this as sufficient reason not to do research.

Let's assume for a moment that we have an approach we believe would like to implement (say "BioChar" for example, even though the Royal Society doesn't rate it very highly) naturally, we would need to scale that up slowly. Any effective program will likely take decades (if not centuries) to implement.

I would like to think that we could monitor progress sufficiently well to say, "Hey! This isn't going to work! Let's back off!"

[Nihil]

17. Some good points there.

> These are excellent reasons not to allow "GeoEngineering Inc." to get
> the "Save the Earth" contract.

Agreed so maybe there's more than a little of the "glass half full/half empty"
discussion here as I look at the way that things have been farmed out to
companies/corporations over here as well as in the US (outsourcing, privatisation)
and can't help but see a Halliburton, Exxon or similar flag behind the attempts
to scale projects up to the real world.

> Let's assume for a moment that we have an approach we believe would like
> to implement ... naturally, we would need to scale that up slowly.
> Any effective program will likely take decades (if not centuries) to implement.
> I would like to think that we could monitor progress sufficiently well to say,
> "Hey! This isn't going to work! Let's back off!"

Although I agree that this would be the ideal, I have concerns with this:

1) We already have significant pressure on the timescales today so planning for
a slow take-up is (IMO) a big invitation to the "business as usual" parties.

2) We have seen how much political effort & funding can be relied upon for
"projects" that lasts beyond a single electoral cycle.

3) By the time that the above delays have taken their toll, the situation will
be so much more critical that the chance of a "Hey! This isn't going to work!
Let's back off!" call being heeded is rapidly approaching zero.

:shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Well my point wasn't that we would have a prudential delay

It's that such a monumental undertaking just isn't going to happen overnight. Implementing a geoengineering scheme just as fast as is humanly possible would still be a "scaling up."

[tinrobot]

10. Go ahead. mask the symptoms.

It may help us last a little longer, but won't cure the underlying disease.

[On the Road]

12. Since Full Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol

is not expected to stop global warming, much less reverse it, it seems irresponsible to take geoengineering off the table.

[appal_jack]

22. Ecological Engineering is more what's needed

I am very skeptical of the physics-centric, techno-fix, corporate-driven, for-profit slant that the field of geo-engineering seems to be taking. Geo-engineering techniques such as mechanical carbon sequestration sound like a recipe for disaster. The potential for groundwater contamination and other mishaps are too high.

Ecological engineering, on the other hand, is rooted in biology and the ecological model. Living entities are arranged and optimized to accomplish ecosystem restoration and accomplish tasks such as carbon sequestration (by, say, fast-growing trees and bio-char production, or algae grown for bio-fuels), water clean-up(John Todd's Living Machines, plus numerous constructed wetlands systems for sewage treatment, acid mine drainage remediation, etc.), and other needed goals.

Sustainable agriculture systems and Permaculture designs are presently-functioning examples of small-scale ecological engineering. Carefully scaling-up and adapting such models to varied necessary tasks is what is needed. While employing living systems is not without risk (invasive species, etc.) it can leap-frog over mechanistic systems if done carefully and intelligently.

The techno-whiz-bang-corpo-approach is what got us into this mess. I'd prefer to use a different model for the solution. See: http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/
for one set of stellar examples of a truly viable alternative to the whole notion of 'geoengineering.'

-app

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. "Ecological engineering" is just another form of "Geo engineering"

Anything we do, in a conscious effort to affect the ecosystem is geoengineering. (Call it what you like.)

[appal_jack]

26. Wrong.

The model proposed by Geo-Engineering is to use a mechanistic / reductionist philosophy and industrial tools to solve single-variable problems (e.g. - CO2 levels > 350 ppm). I think that you and I both agree that this is doomed to fail, and probably cause further problems in the process.

Ecological Engineering, or better yet, 'Ecological Design' proposes to innovate new and intensified symbioses between human beings and natural systems in order to produce food, fiber, and other necessary materials and services. I think that John Todd summarizes some of the essential principles well in the following interview:

http://www.enviroeducation.com/interviews/john-todd/

While the goals of such ecological design are still anthropocentric, in that the natural systems are harnessed to make things better for people, such a design philosophy still forces its participants to respect wilderness and nature as the ultimate teacher and toolbox. The paradigm shift that will occur as biomimicry, Permaculture, and ecological design take root will be wonderfully vast and transformative. If we can get there before erasing too much of the essential biodiversity, climatological function, and other ecosystem services that nature already provides, we may just survive as a species. But the mechanistic / Cartesian / industrial approach toward solving multi-variable, complex, and essentially chaotic problems has got to be tossed overboard.

-app

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. I think we're arguing semantics here

The Royal Society's recent report, “Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty,” gives us a pretty good definition:
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8729

…

Such action might involve geoengineering, defined as the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global warming.

…

They list several examples:

…

Carbon Dioxide Removal methods reviewed in this study include:

• Land use management to protect or enhance land carbon sinks;


• The use of biomass for carbon sequestration as well as a carbon neutral energy source;


• Enhancement of natural weathering processes to remove CO2 from the atmosphere;


• Direct engineered capture of CO2 from ambient air;


• The enhancement of oceanic uptake of CO2, for example by fertilisation of the oceans with naturally scarce nutrients, or by increasing upwelling processes.

…

They go from approaches which you might call "Ecological engineering" (i.e. “Land use management…”) to more “industrial” approaches such as “Placing shields or deflectors in space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth.”

They classify them all as forms of “geoengineering.”