Hi All John's estimate of a few billion a year assumes that we have already got to double pre-industrial CO2. To 'hold the fort' until the cavalry arrive would cost only about $100 million a year to cancel the effects of the present rate of increase.
Stephen John Nissen wrote: > We should seriously consider the cost/benefit for SRM geoengineering. > > The cost of SRM geoengineering to halt global warming using > stratospheric aerosols (less than $1 billion per year) or tropospheric > cloud brightening (a few billion per year?) is very much less than the > cost of adaptation to global warming to save lives, estimated as $50 > billion per year by Gavin Edwards, Head of Greenpeace's Climate and > Energy Campaign, in the CNN interview. > > If albedo engineering also prevents the disappearance the Arctic sea > ice, the release of vast quantities of methane, and the collapse of > the Greenland ice sheet, then it is saving us a near impossible task > of adaptation. Indeed it would be saving us from risk of the ultimate > calamity. What price do you put on preventing the collapse of > civilisation? Multiply that by the risk, and albedo engineering is a > bargain we cannot afford to ignore. > > Note that the moral hazard objection to geoengineering - that it lets > polluters off the hook - is similar to the argument against bailing > out Wall Street - that it lets rich blighters off the hook. We may > all suffer if action is not taken on either score. May I suggest that > the result of inaction on geoengineering is rather worse? > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John > > > On Oct 2, 11:56 pm, "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/02/700bn.climate/ >> >> "So what would happen if governments ignored the un-capitalist cries for >> mercy spilling out from Wall Street and put the money towards climate change >> instead? What would $700 billion buy? >> Let us start at the margins of common sense. You could buy 100 billion >> energy saving light bulbs. At the other end of the scale, $700 billion would >> contribute a third of the cost towards a geo-engineering project which >> imagines deflecting the sun's rays away from earth. Astronomer Roger Angel >> believes that the bill for his idea of a vast array of space mirrors would >> be around $2 trillion." >> >> Of course, none of the geoengineering plans, including the space LENSES >> would require all of the money be spent at once, unlike the federal bailout, >> oops rescue plan for Wall, I mean main street that would probably see most >> of the money spent over the next few years. So it really isn't fair to >> compare space lenses with bad mortgages. The point of the bailout package, >> seemingly lost on most people, including many members of Congress is to get >> the LIBOR down to where states, businesses and individuals can get loans. >> Now that one sounds like a candidate for Discovery Project Wall Street for >> sure. >> >> Dreaming of a climate bailout >> a.. Story Highlights >> b.. How much would $700 billion help climate change mitigation and >> adaptation? >> >> c.. Greenpeace spokesman says $700 billion would "give us a good head >> start" >> >> d.. U.S. economist says gains would be "extraordinary" compared to doing >> nothing >> e.. Next Article in Technology ยป >> >> By Matthew Knight >> For CNN >> >> LONDON, England (CNN) -- Governments around the world continue to pump >> billions of dollars into financial markets, but there is still no telling >> whether the "injections of liquidity" will be enough to prevent "this >> sucker" -- to quote the President of the United States -- from going down. >> >> Could 700 billion greenbacks be put to better use and kickstart a green >> revolution? >> >> To many people one of the more fascinating aspects of the unfolding >> spectacle has been the bewildering amounts of money made available by >> governments to avert financial catastrophe. And no one knows yet whether it >> will all be worth it. >> The same could be said of climate change. No one really knows how bad it >> will get, but as the Stern Report concluded in 2006 doing nothing about it >> now is going to massively increase the costs of mitigation further down the >> line. >> >> But the amounts being talked about and spent on climate initiatives by >> governments is dwarfed by the bail out package. >> >> Take, for example, a statement issued by the World Bank at the end of >> September which revealed that 10 leading industrialized nations -- including >> the United States, Japan and the UK -- have pledged a total of $6.1 billion >> to help "Climate Investment Funds". That's around $675 million per nation. >> >> This sense of skewed priorities was recently put into perspective by rock >> star Bono. Speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative, the U2 front man made >> a damning comparison. "It's extraordinary to me that the United States can >> find $700 billion to save Wall Street and the entire G-8 can't find $25 >> billion dollars to save 25,000 children who die every day from preventable >> diseases," he said. >> >> So what would happen if governments ignored the un-capitalist cries for >> mercy spilling out from Wall Street and put the money towards climate change >> instead? What would $700 billion buy? >> >> Let us start at the margins of common sense. You could buy 100 billion >> energy saving light bulbs. At the other end of the scale, $700 billion would >> contribute a third of the cost towards a geo-engineering project which >> imagines deflecting the sun's rays away from earth. Astronomer Roger Angel >> believes that the bill for his idea of a vast array of space mirrors would >> be around $2 trillion. >> >> A slightly more plausible idea might be to oversee a comprehensive >> insulation program for 700 million homes or perhaps fund domestic solar >> panels. A $10,000 photovoltaic solar array could be installed atop 70 >> million homes. >> >> Much of the responsibility for our future energy needs rests on the fortunes >> of large-scale renewable solar and wind projects. Why not role out a >> comprehensive program now? For example, the 40 megawatt Waldpolenz Solar >> Park in Bolanden, Germany is due to be switched on in 2009 at a cost of $180 >> million. The Wall Street bailout would pay for nearly 3,900 such solar farms. >> >> Don't Miss >> a.. Principal Voices: Climate change: Debating solutions >> b.. Principal Voices: Gore calls for coal protests >> c.. Principal Voices: Farewell Greenland >> If wind power was the only item on your shopping list then you could afford >> to build 3,700 farms similar to the 90 megawatt facility being built >> offshore at the Kentish Flats Wind Farm in the UK, which would collectively >> generate an impressive 330 gigawatts. >> >> Alternatively, nuclear energy -- now back from the dead and a big favorite >> with energy ministers worldwide -- would see 175 new plants at $4 billion >> each. >> >> But as Gavin Edwards, Head of Greenpeace's Climate and Energy Campaign, >> points out: "There are two sides of the coin in tackling climate change. One >> is to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, the other is adaptation," he told >> CNN. >> >> Using figures from the Stern Report, the IPCC and renewable energy >> industries Edwards gave CNN his assessment of how Greenpeace would spend the >> money. >> >> "If you put $30 billion a year towards protecting forests, then that could >> cut greenhouse gas emissions by one fifth," he said. >> >> "Another $20 billion per year is enough to spur an energy revolution and a >> massive uptake of green energy. And approximately another $10 billion per >> year would make sure we are using energy much more efficiently. >> >> "That's about $60 billion right there for mitigating climate change." >> >> For adaptation, Edwards put the figure at around $50 billion per year for >> saving lives in developing countries and continents such as Africa. >> >> "So that's about $110 billion per year," he said. "So if the U.S. Congress >> diverted money from the financial bailout we could have a really good head >> start on climate change in the next six years, if we applied the $700 >> billion in this way." Read about Greenpeace's Energy Revolution here. >> >> An Economist's view >> >> Earlier this year, Gary Yohe, Woodhouse/Sysco Professor of Economics at >> Wesleyan University in Connecticut participated in Bjorn Lomborg's >> Copenhagen Consensus exercise where global issues are rigorously debated and >> then ranked in terms of importance. >> >> Yohe headed a team of three economists whose task it was to calculate a >> workable fiscal plan for global warming. "Almost by coincidence," Yohe told >> CNN, "$700 billion is close to the discounted budget for the Copenhagen >> Consensus exercise. $800 billion, actually." >> >> "Allocating $50 billion to research and development (R&D) on carbon friendly >> technology produced a discounted payback of nearly three times that amount. >> >> "Adding reflections of aversion to risk, as well as optimally allocating >> effort over time, increased the payback to more than six times the >> investment." Download Gary Yohe's challenge paper here. >> >> But he cautions against spending $50 billion on R&D without economic >> incentives. "We would be wasting a lot of effort," he said. >> >> "We should be thinking about risks and the degree to which you are reducing >> risks as you make these investments," Yohe said. >> >> "That's a reasonable question about the bailout as well. $700-800 billion >> dollars wouldn't guarantee that you are going to avoid climate change. Nor >> does that figure guarantee you are going to avoid significant financial >> trouble. But the benefits avoided are likely to be really quite substantial." >> >> Yohe says that the $800 billion figure he drew up in his Copenhagen >> Consensus paper isn't necessarily the right number, but it would produce "an >> extraordinary gain relative to doing nothing." He concludes that a mixture >> of adaptation and mitigation approaches coupled with greater research and >> development into greener technology would yield the best returns on the >> money allocated. >> >> The bailout bill passed by the U.S. Senate now stands at $810 billion -- >> strikingly similar to the budget Yohe himself has been theorizing about. >> When the dust settles on the financial crisis his analysis may well provide >> politicians with a useful framework from which to start developing a >> meaningful large-scale climate change strategy. >> >> But climate change is going to require a lot more than just plain hard cash. >> "This is going to sound North American centric," Yohe said. "But I think the >> world is looking for U.S. leadership and if, in January, it picks up a >> leadership role -- accepting the notion that there is a void in leadership >> -- there will a great deal of response." >> >> How would you spend $700 billion to combat climate change? Let us know in >> the sound off box below. >> >> 1x1pixel.gif >> < 1KViewDownload >> >> corner_dg_BL.gif >> < 1KViewDownload >> >> corner_dg_TL.gif >> < 1KViewDownload >> > > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
