Oppenheimer says. “If you reduce emissions, you're moving back along the limb you walked out on, but with geoengineering, you're not.”
This is a misconception. If people just reduce consumption of electricity, petrol and coal, this would be true. This is unlikely to happen. What is most likely is substitution - of electricity from Coal fired plants with electricity from other sources, of petrol and diesel vehicles with electric vehicles, etc. So many new technologies will be put in place to generate electricity from renewable sources and manufacture better batteries, etc. These new technologies will bring in a new set of problems - safety of Nuclear power plants, impact of large number of wind mills, tidal power plants, disposal of solar panels, batteries, etc. So emission reduction too will result in Geoengineering but in an indirect and unintentional manner, this may be more difficult to control than direct Geoengineering. If all the cars in the world were to be replaced with horse drawn carts. How many horses would be needed? How much grass and grain would they consume? If all petrol and diesel cars are replaced with electric cars. How many batteries would be required? How would they be disposed off? As long as consumption is high pollution will continue in one form or other. Any large scale consumption is geoengineering in one form or other. best regards Bhaskar On Dec 21, 7:43 pm, Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1001/full/climate.2010.135.html > > Feature > Nature Reports Climate Change > Published online: 17 December 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2010.135 > Planning for plan B > Controlling the climate with technology was once the stuff of science > fiction. But with tests already underway, there's an urgent need for > global governance of geoengineering. Mason Inman reports. > > Victor Smetacek and colleagues faced fierce opposition to their > experiment on ocean ecosystems in January, owing to its possible > implications for climate control. > > When Victor Smetacek and his colleagues cruised to the Southern Ocean > in January 2009, they hoped to launch straight into pouring ten tons > of iron sulphate into the waters below. Instead they spent days on > board cranking out a risk assessment of their experiment, making the > case that their plans were legal. > > This kind of experiment had been done a dozen times before with little > fanfare. The scientists were mainly interested in understanding iron's > role in ocean ecosystems. But because their results would also be > crucial for testing the feasibility of a particular plan to cool the > climate, fierce opposition met the experiment by Smetacek — an > oceanographer from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine > Research in Bremerhaven, Germany — and his Indian collaborators. > Infusing the ocean with iron could stimulate the growth of plankton > blooms, which theoretically would draw carbon down into the deep sea, > keeping it out of the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of > years. > > By early 2009 such 'geoengineering' schemes had become the subject of > serious scientific discussion. With emissions still rising, scientists > had started to warn that deliberate climate control might be a > necessary last-ditch attempt to curb warming and its deleterious > impacts. “There's a sense that the world is getting out of control,” > says Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist and climate policy expert at > Princeton University in New Jersey. “That's what's led some scientists > to refocus on geoengineering.” > > Early research shows that various schemes such as pumping sulphate > aerosols into the sky or spraying saltwater above the oceans could, in > theory at least, cool the planet — some perhaps by a few degrees or > more. But research also suggests that there could be unintended — and > ugly — consequences, such as widespread drought and substantial ozone > depletion1, 2. Added to those concerns are the ethics of intentionally > interfering with the climate, creating a legislative nightmare. > “Geoengineering is the most serious governance concern that we're > going to be facing in the next couple of decades,” argues Maria > Ivanova, director of Yale University's Global Environmental Governance > Project. “It's really about planetary survival.” > > Yet there have been no laws in place specifically aimed at regulating > geoengineering, precisely because there has been no need. The science > community's growing interest in more research into potential > approaches, however, has led to fears that experiments could easily > get ahead of efforts to regulate them. Such was the concern of those > opposed to Smetacek's plans. > > Back in 2008 the project, named Lohafex, had been given the green > light from the London Convention, which governs dumping in the open > ocean. The Convention opened a loophole specifically to allow ocean- > fertilization experiments. But as Smetacek and colleagues set sail, > the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the German Ministry of > Environment and a Canadian watchdog organization called ETC Group > tried to stop the experiment. “There was no accepted legal authority, > so there was a task team at our institute trying to solve this whole > thing,” says Smetacek, who found the experience “really nerve- > wracking”. > > Full steam ahead > > Besides its impact on research, the legislative situation — hazy and > full of holes — means that any nation or company, or even an > individual with the will and financial means to do so, could start to > interfere with the climate. > > “Geoengineering is the most serious governance concern that we're > going to be facing in the next couple of decades. It's really about > planetary survival.” > > Maria Ivanova > In fact, companies are already moving ahead on developing and testing > various approaches. Two such companies, Climos and Planktos, both > founded in the past five years, hope to fertilize the oceans using the > same method being tested by Smetacek and to sell emissions offsets for > the sunk carbon. “When Planktos and Climos entered the picture, the > dread of unregulated commercial scale-up was enflamed,” says Ken > Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science > in Stanford, California, who was not involved in the research. > > Caldeira is not against private-sector involvement in geoengineering, > however, and has lent his scientific expertise to another company, > Intellectual Ventures, based in Bellevue, Washington. Intellectual > Ventures has filed for several patents for climate-altering > technologies. One, called StratoShield, would use a long hose > suspended from balloons to send sulphate aerosols into the > stratosphere. Intellectual Ventures says on its website that “we do > not expect or intend that our climate technology inventions will make > money” and that it's doing the work for the public good. Caldeira says > he would donate any profits from the technology he has advised on to > charity. > > But the possibility of profit from carbon credits has led to fears > that the cash incentive could push geoengineering ahead too fast, or > in the wrong directions. Already, evidence exists that the profit > motive can lure unscrupulous companies into the market. In November, > the US Securities and Exchange Commission charged a Pennsylvania-based > company, the Mantria Corporation, with operating what regulators > called “a $30 million dollar Ponzi scheme”, saying it used exaggerated > claims and aggressive marketing to con people into investing in > biochar sequestration. > > Proceed with caution > > The thought of mavericks tinkering with the climate, whether for money > or for the greater good, could lead some to conclude “that maybe we > ought to have a global taboo against doing this”, says Granger Morgan, > an engineer and director of Carnegie Mellon's Climate Decision Making > Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But there are legitimate reasons > for allowing geoengineering research to go ahead. As no climate- > altering technique has yet been tested at a large scale, there are a > lot of uncertainties. “We know how to do this right now,” Morgan says. > “What we don't know is the cost or the unintentional consequences.” > > To try to get a better handle on the possibilities, many experts are > calling for more research. Among supporters of the idea, a common > argument is that geoengineering could be a back-up plan in case the > world doesn't manage to cut greenhouse gases enough or the climate > turns out to be more sensitive than we thought. There could be a > planetary emergency where the climate crosses a tipping point — say, > with the potent greenhouse gas methane pouring from thawing Arctic > permafrost — and heats up much faster. “If those long-tail > possibilities turn out to be reality, we may wake up one day with a > billion people at risk and actually need to do something,” says > Morgan. In a case like that, he argues, geoengineering could look much > more appealing. > > Another popular argument for research is that it's necessary to avoid > a big mistake. Suppose, says Morgan, “a major state finds that because > of climate change it can't feed its people and starts doing > [geoengineering], or decides it's a lot cheaper than mitigation”. Then > the world could face tough decisions about whether to condone > geoengineering or try to stop it. “If we haven't done the research,” > Morgan says, “the international community has to fall back on a moral > argument, as opposed to a science-based argument.” > > But while testing schemes such as ocean fertilization on a small scale > is one thing, far more contentious are 'quick and dirty' plans to > alter the global climate. Such proposed schemes include 'cloud ships' > that would spray seawater into the air to thicken ocean clouds, and — > most popular of all — various methods of pumping sulphate aerosols > into the upper atmosphere, where they would reflect sunlight and cool > the planet quickly, just like huge volcanic eruptions do. > > Studies of past volcanic eruptions — such as the 1991 eruption of > Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines — suggest that sulphate aerosols > could be used to cool the climate by a few degrees or more, but that > they could also eat away at the ozone layer or slash rainfall > worldwide3, 4. More worrying still are the unknowns. “Compared with > mitigation, it's much harder to predict the outcome,” Oppenheimer > says. “If you reduce emissions, you're moving back along the limb you > walked out on, but with geoengineering, you're not.” > > Legal labyrinth > > Early research has shown that pumping sulphate aerosols into the > stratosphere could cool the planet, but could also lead to some > seriously unpleasant side effects. > > © ISTOCKPHOTO / JESÚS JAVIER DEL VALLE MELENDO > Regulating geoengineering research will thus be tricky, but necessary. > “If you don't legitimize this, you better not attempt it, because > you're likely to be attacked,” says John Steinbruner, director of the > Center for International and Security Studies at the University of > Maryland in College Park, who thinks that maverick attempts at > regulating the climate could lead to violence. > > Many see the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — the same body > that oversees the Kyoto Protocol and its successor that's now under > negotiation — as the logical authority to control these activities5. > But others say that because geoengineering techniques are so varied, > trying to create a global treaty to cover them would be a disaster. > “It would take a very long time to negotiate it,” says Steve Rayner, > director of the University of Oxford's Institute for Science, > Innovation and Society. “That would mean that in the meantime either > things go ahead unregulated, which would be a bad idea, or that you go > ahead with a moratorium until you get the regime in place, which would > also be a bad idea.” And the field is not quite ripe for a meaningful > review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), argues > Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute, a think tank based in > Washington DC. “The IPCC mainly prepares reports based on reviews of > the literature, [so] it would have a difficult time addressing this > challenge early in the process.” > > But regulation could begin without the advent of a new global treaty. > As Smetacek and colleagues found out, existing treaties can also be > interpreted to cover some approaches. One geoengineering proposal > involving mirrors orbiting in space to deflect sunlight would probably > be regulated under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Sulphate aerosols > could be covered under the Montreal Protocol, which bans key ozone- > destroying chemicals, since the aerosols could eat away at the ozone > layer. But the aerosol approach could also fall under the UN > Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, originally put > in place to stop power plants' sulphate emissions — a common cause of > acid rain — which were crossing borders in Europe and North America. > > And if a country felt it was being targeted by hostile geoengineering, > this could bring the 1978 Environmental Modification Convention, now > largely dormant, off the bench and into play. “It does have the > provision that if some nation says they think another country is > ruining their weather, it can trigger a [UN] Security Council > meeting,” says science historian James Fleming of Colby College in > Waterville, Maine. > > But since none of these environmental treaties was originally designed > with geoengineering in mind, bending them to this new purpose could > lead to a “governance trap”, warns Jason Blackstock, a physicist and > international relations expert at the International Institute for > Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria. Then the world could > get locked into a certain approach to governing geoengineering, even > if it's far from ideal. For sulphate aerosol geoengineering, for > example, “the Montreal Protocol, in principle, could be applicable — > but is it the right [instrument] for that?” he asks. “Its function and > role is to ban substances, not to evaluate risks and benefits of field > tests.” > > Responsible research > > As a first step to guide further research, the London Convention has > pulled together a science advisory board. “The objective was to try to > come up with a sensible set of regulations,” says board member Richard > Lampitt, an oceanographer at the UK's National Oceanography Centre in > Southampton. And a wider discussion about how to move forward on > geoengineering — involving scientists, policymakers, watchdog > organizations, ethicists, legal experts and security experts — is > gathering steam. In addition to a review of geoengineering options > conducted this year by the UK's Royal Society6, several groups in the > US — including NASA, the Council on Foreign Relations and the National > Academy of Sciences — have organized meetings to weigh various > approaches. > > “If we haven't done the research, the international community has to > fall back on a moral argument, as opposed to a science-based > argument.” > > Granger Morgan > A meeting planned for March, the Asilomar Conference on Climate > Intervention Technologies, will aim for a set of guidelines for > geoengineering field trials, says MacCracken, who's helping to > organize it. It's modelled after a 1975 conference, also in Asilomar, > California, which hashed out guidelines on genetic engineering, a new > and controversial field at the time. The Asilomar meeting argued for > self-policing, which at the time was widely hailed as successful in > taking research forward responsibly. But genetic engineering was much > easier to regulate than geoengineering, since “there were no national > interest issues involved”, Blackstock says. “With climate, national > interests are already entrenched in the discussion.” > > Beyond self-governance by the sector, governments will probably be > involved — and in the United States and United Kingdom they're already > starting to take a closer look. The science and technology committees > in the UK House of Commons and the US House of Representatives both > held hearings on geoengineering in 2009 and will have additional > hearings in early 2010, with a joint report between the two committees > planned for the spring. > > “If you had talked [in government] about geoengineering as a practical > solution to climate change, even three years ago, you'd have been > laughed off the planet,” says Phil Willis, chair of the UK House of > Commons Science and Technology Committee. But now, because of “real > concern that mitigation is simply not going to be effective enough to > halt catastrophic effects of climate change”, he says, these > committees are trying to raise awareness and are looking at the best > vehicles to deliver regulation. > > With clear regulation in place, scientists like Smetacek would > probably face an easier time in conducting their fieldwork. Luckily > for Smetacek and colleagues, they got approval from the German > ministries to go ahead with their experiment. They sailed out to the > open ocean, away from the island of South Georgia, and chose a spot > where a vast, spiralling eddy would hold their iron sulphate in one > spot, as if in a giant test tube. Cruising in a spiral covering 150 > square kilometres, they poured in the iron compound. But their > fertilization experiment sparked a bloom of plankton known as > flagellates, which seem to have been eaten by predators, and so it > ultimately failed to draw any additional carbon down from the surface > waters. > > Rather than being a step toward geoengineering, it poured cold water > on the whole idea of ocean fertilization for sequestering CO2, says > Smetacek. The approach might sequester one billion tons of carbon a > year at most, he says — roughly one-tenth of people's emissions. “It's > not going to have much of an impact,” Smetacek says. “In that way, we > were lucky, because we showed it didn't work, so everyone shut up.” > Indeed, says Morgan, “Doing some serious research and discovering > there are a bunch of problems that nobody had anticipated might in > fact make folks pause.” > > Top of page > References > Lenton, T. M. & Vaughan, N. E. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 9, 2559– > 2608 (2009). > Bala, G. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 7664–7669 (2008). > Trenberth, K. E. & Dai, A. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L15702 (2007). | > Article > Tilmes, S. et al. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D12305 (2009). > Lin, A. C. Issues Legal Scholar. 8, 3 (2009). > Shepherd, J. et al. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance > and Uncertainty (Royal Society, London, > 2009);http://royalsociety.org/Geoengineering-the-climate/ > Mason Inman is a freelance science writer based in Karachi, Pakistan. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
