Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumGeoengineering Could Be Essential to Reducing the Risk of Climate Change
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506256/geoengineering-could-be-essential-to-reducing-the-risk-of-climate-change/[font size=4]Using technology to cool the planet may be the only way to deal with the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, argues scientist David Keith.[/font]
[font size=3]By Kevin Bullis on October 25, 2012
Geoengineeringusing technology to purposefully change the climateis the only option for reducing the risk of climate change from greenhouse-gas emissions in the next few decades, says David Keith, a professor of public policy and applied physics at Harvard University. And he says that if its done in moderation, it could be much safer than some experts have argued. In fact, says Keith, effective methods of geoengineering are so cheap and easy that just about any country could do itfor better or worse.
Keith, speaking this week at MIT Technology Reviews annual EmTech conference, says it is already too late to avoid climate changes by reducing carbon emissions alone. The carbon dioxide thats been released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is already likely to cause significant harm, such as raising temperatures enough to hurt crop yields in many places. If you want to, say, really stop the loss of Arctic sea ice or stop heat-stress crop losses over the next few decades, geoengineering is pretty much the only thing you can do, he says (see Why Climate Scientists Support Geoengineering Research).
Keiths preferred method of geoengineering is to shade the earth by injecting sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere, imitating a similar process that happens with large volcanic eruptions, which are known to temporarily cool the planet. The technique could be effective even if far less sulfate were injected than is currently emitted by fossil-fuel power plants. A million tons per year injected into the stratosphere would be enoughwhereas 50 million tons are injected into the lower part of the atmosphere by coal plants, he says. (In the lower atmosphere, the sulfates are less effective at cooling because they stay airborne for shorter periods.)
One of the main objections to geoengineering is that the measures that might be taken to cool the planet wont exactly offset the effects of carbon dioxide, so they could actually make things much worsefor example, by altering patterns of precipitation. Keith says recent climate models suggest that injecting sulfate particles into the upper reaches of the atmosphere might not affect precipitation nearly as much as others have warned.
[/font][/font]
Cirque du So-What
(26,004 posts)Years ago, I read of similar plans with dismay, knowing that Big Oil would fight tooth & nail against all efforts to reduce carbon emissions, eventually requiring drastic measures. I shudder to think of what could go wrong with all these grandiose schemes and their unpredictable consequences.
formercia
(18,479 posts)Those particles will sink eventually.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)There is only one true solution to the problem of CO2: stop producing it. Yesterday, preferably.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The answer to the problem is volcanoes blowing up and sending earth into the sky. Maybe, mebbe not.
Like G says, really the answer is to just stop co2 emissions. Especially those from jets at 30,000 feet. ""Oh no!! I can't stop flying!"" they say. Well, if you don't care about co2 way high in the sky where it does the most damage, then just go fly. Just be cognizant of the changes you are creating.
Yeah, did you figure out that I quit flying a long time ago? Just doing my part and feeling less guilty, to boot! Win/win.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Iterate
(3,020 posts)Has anyone else burned their car? I strongly recommend it. If you're going to opt out before being forced out, do it with a flare.