Geoengineering Archives
Share
Both Wired and the New Scientist covered a somewhat controversial gathering of geo-engineering scientists and policy makers at Asilomar last week that evoked both nostalgia and criticism. Nostalgia for the original conference that last week's was modeled after -- a 1975 meeting of scientific minds intent on self-regulating recombinant DNA experimentation. Criticism because the assumption that scientists, then and now, can self-govern without making regulations that would ultimately benefit their own self interest.
From Wired:
"Susan Wright, a historian of science at the University of Michigan, has called the bargain supposedly struck at Asilomar -- some research restrictions in exchange for scientific self-governance -- a myth on both sides of the deal.
"It is a myth that most scientists working under competitive pressures can address the implications of their own work with dispassion and establish appropriately stringent controls -- any more than an unregulated Bill Gates can give competing browsers equal access to the world wide web," she wrote. "Sure enough, some five years later, the controls proposed at Asilomar and developed by the National Institutes of Health were dismantled without anything like adequate knowledge of the hazards."
Further, she says, "it is equally a myth that scientists in this field are self-governing." Instead, their research agendas are shaped by utilitarian interests of government or corporate sponsors. Even at that early stage, before the biotech boom of later years, molecular biologists were never doing pure science."
And even with regulations, the New Scientist posits, as experiments progress to larger and larger scales, which countries or governing bodies decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks of altering the climate:
"If experiments progress to a larger scale, a second problem arises: which nations should decide whether a proposal has proved safe enough to implement? Most agreed that as some solutions could have a global impact, they could only be deployed after global talks, led by the United Nations, for instance. Talks would have to include plans to compensate people whose livelihoods could be damaged by side effects. Others argued that global negotiations could become impossible to manage, and cited UN-led climate talks as an example of how all-inclusive efforts can fail to solve problems requiring decisive action."
Geoengineering represents a potentially critical tool in mitigating climate change and warrants continued, expanded research. With that in mind, it is definitely not too soon to be tackling these tough questions and developing viable solutions so that research can move forward safely and responsibly.
For more information, the New Scientist also has an excellent graphical summary of the risks, costs, and potential effectiveness of different geo-engineering options (embedded below).
A recent report, released by geo-engineering experts at the UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineering, highlights the viability of geo-engineered technologies, such as algae coated buildings, as a stop-gap solution for rising carbon emissions and imminent climate change
Share
By Yael Borofsky, Breakthrough Fellow
No - this is not an obscure Ghostbusters reference. According to the Financial Times, geo-engineering experts at the UK-based Institution of Mechanical Engineering (IME) have deemed "slime-covered buildings", along with artificial trees and reflective buildings, viable options for removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Although "slime" is a slightly hyperbolic reference to strips of carbon-consuming algae, a recent report by IME says the substance can be installed via bio-reactors on building walls to absorb carbon from the air. Before it decomposes (and really gets slimy) the algae is collected and either decarbonized or reprocessed as fuel. While "slime" carbon capture is still in the planning stages, it is an extremely attractive geo-engineering option because its waste could be used as a biofuel and it would require no additional land to deploy.
The report, entitled "Geo-engineering: Giving us Time to Act," is intended to advance acceptance of geo-engineering as a potential climate change mitigator and proposes a 75-100 year roadmap for countering climate that includes geo-engineering as part, not all, of the solution. According to the IME:
Geo-engineering is not an encompassing solution to global warming. It is however, another potential component in our approach to climate change that could prove the world with extra time to decarbonise the global economy, a task which has yet to begin in earnest.
Much of the resistance to geo-engineering innovations - such as faux-trees that capture carbon more effectively than the real thing - is based on the fear that these technologies will replace clean energy technology as the preferred solution to reducing carbon intensity. The report emphasizes, however, that geo-engineering is not the so-called silver bullet solution, it's a stop-gap measure that will help manage the world's carbon overstock while clean energy is being developed and deployed.
Continue reading ""Slime" Could Be Latest Weapon in Climate Fight Arsenal" »
Share
Written by Breakthrough Fellow, Leigh Ewbank. Originally published by On Line Opinion - Australia's e-Journal of social and political debate:
Last week marked the 60th anniversary of the momentous Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act - the first step in a 25-year journey to modernise our nation. Unrivalled in its ambition, the Snowy Mountains Scheme would meet the dual objectives of providing reliable electricity for our cities and towns, and water supplies to sustain food production along the Murray River.
Australia's largest-ever engineering project would spur social and economic development and benefit the cities and rural communities of Australia's southeast for generations. Without fanfare or media attention, Australia forgot to acknowledge a significant moment in our nation's history.
Today Australia faces new challenges: our climate is changing. And we must quickly transition to a clean energy economy to avoid the worst-case scenarios predicted by climate scientists. Alongside this comes the continued global economic change that is putting increased pressure on established industries. Our parliament must act to encourage the expansion of new industries and secure jobs for the future.
A new nation-building project on the scale of the Snowy Mountains Scheme is needed.
Continue reading "Snowy Mountain Scheme for the 21st century" »
Seed Magazine asks five experts to debate the future of climate engineering.
Share
Geoengineering is the idea that we as humans can somehow "hack the planet" and to control (i.e. engineer) climate systems on a large-scale and counteract the potentially disastrous impacts of global climate change. Once considered the realm of kooks, crackpots and science fiction writers, the idea was given a recent push towards legitimacy when none other than John Holdren, the White House's science advisor, mentioned that no option, no matter how farfetched, is off the table as far as climate change was concerned.
Holdren later clarified that this was only his own personal opinion and not that of the current administration, but when Obama's science chief admits to considering something it does add a note of credibility to the argument.
Breakthrough Senior Fellow, Roger Pielke Jr., was recently asked by Seed magazine to throw in his own two cents on the issue. Along with four other writers, scientists and environmental advocates, Pielke had this to say:
Writing in Nature last December, Dan Sarewitz and Dick Nelson offer three criteria by which to distinguish "problems amenable to technological fixes from those that are not." Here I apply these criteria to the technology of geo-engineering the climate system, defined by the American Meteorological Society as an effort to "deliberately manipulate large-scale physical, chemical, or biological aspects of the climate system to counteract the climate effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions." Examples of geo-engineering thus include injecting aerosols into the stratosphere or seeding the ocean with iron, but would not include capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants or the ambient air.
Geo-engineering falls well short of all three of the criteria that Sarewitz/Nelson present as guidelines for when to employ a technological fix."
(read Pielke's response in full here)
Continue reading "The (Dangerous?) Allure of Geo-engineering" »
Almost nine out of 10 climate scientists do not believe political efforts to restrict global warming to 2C will succeed, a Guardian poll reveals today. Time to get serious about adaptation, geoengineering, air capture and transformational innovation.
Share
File this under "D" for "Depressing" and "G" for time to "Get Serious" about adaptation, geoengineering, biochar and air capture technologies and transformational clean energy innovation. Because if what these scientists say is true, we're going to need a healthy dose of each to mitigate and adapt to the warming likely to hit populations across the planet over the coming century and beyond.
According to a survey from the UK Guardian:
Almost nine out of 10 climate scientists do not believe political efforts to restrict global warming to 2C will succeed, a Guardian poll reveals today. An average rise of 4-5C by the end of this century is more likely, they say, given soaring carbon emissions and political constraints.
Such a change would disrupt food and water supplies, exterminate thousands of species of plants and animals and trigger massive sea level rises that would swamp the homes of hundreds of millions of people.
The poll of those who follow global warming most closely exposes a widening gulf between political rhetoric and scientific opinions on climate change. While policymakers and campaigners focus on the 2C target, 86% of the experts told the survey they did not think it would be achieved. A continued focus on an unrealistic 2C rise, which the EU defines as dangerous, could even undermine essential efforts to adapt to inevitable higher temperature rises in the coming decades, they warned.
Continue reading "Scientists Say Don't Bet on Holding Warming to 2C" »
Share
Cross-posted from Prometheus: the Science Policy Blog
Earlier this week John Holdren gave his first interview to the AP's Seth Borenstein, a reporter who has a track record of vigorous support for action on climate change and as a determined opponent of the Bush Administration. It is thus no surprise that Borenstein got the first interview. What is a surprise is how Borenstein was so quickly blamed by Holdren for somehow misrepresenting his comments. This flap, a tempest in a teapot really, illustrates some of the challenges faced by the science advisor -- is he part of the Administration or not?
Here are the details. AP reported the following about Holdren's characterization of geoengineering in the White House:
At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.
"We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge."
Holdren said discussions include Cabinet officials and heads of sub-Cabinet level agencies, such as NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that if the science advisor, Cabinet and sub-Cabinet level officials from agencies including NASA and EPA are talking about geoengineering, then it would be perfectly fair to say that the Obama Administration is considering geoengineering.
After the AP article was published, Holdren sent out a clarifying email, reported by Andy Revkin of the NYT, explaining his dissatisfaction with the AP story.
I also made clear that this was my personal view, not Administration policy. Asked whether I had mentioned geo-engineering in any White House discussions, though, I said that I had. This is NOT the same thing as saying the White House is giving serious consideration to geo-engineering - which it isn't -- and I am disappointed that the headline and the text of the article suggest otherwise.
Continue reading "John Holdren's Minor Geoengineering Gaffe" »
Share
Cross posted from Prometheus: The Science Policy Blog
John Holdren has given his first interview since being confirmed as President Obama's science advisor. In it he suggests that the Obama Administration is ready to consider geoengineering via particulate injection into the upper atmosphere as well as air capture, citing new cost estimates. Here is an excerpt from the AP article:
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."
Continue reading "John Holdren's First Interview - Supports Geoengineering, Including Air Capture" »
With scientific reports on climate change getting more and more dire and a major top-to-bottom reorganization of the entire massive global energy system needed to overcome the climate/energy challenge, it may be high time we invest in an insurance policy...
Share
In a thought-provoking piece at the Energy Collective (registration req'd) and Huffington Post Green, Marc Gunther interviews geoengineering expert David Victor and asks us to look hard at potential options to save the climate.
With scientific reports on climate change getting more and more dire and a major top-to-bottom reorganization of the entire massive global energy system needed to overcome the climate/energy challenge, it may be high time we invest in an insurance policy, including R&D in geoengineering and new carbon capture technologies (like biochar) that may offer new options to help mitigate the potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change.
Still, there are tough questions ahead, which Gunther takes a crack at in his post. You can read it below the fold....
Continue reading "Is it Time to Get Serious About Geoengineering?" »
Breakthrough Senior Fellow Marty Hoffert joins panel of experts calling for major, direct government investments and targeted public policies designed to spur high-risk, high-reward energy innovation.
Share
Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow Marty Hoffert joined a panel of energy experts from both industry and academia at an American Association for the Advancement of Science panel on energy innovation held in Washington D.C. this week. The panel of experts called for major, direct government investments and targeted public policies designed to spur high-risk, high-reward energy innovation.
Businesses and the private sector are ill-suited to perform the kind of critical, long-term energy research needed to solve national energy challenges, panelists said, calling for targeted public policies and investments designed to drive improvements and lower costs of clean energy technologies.
They also encouraged federal energy R&D initiatives to not overlook some of the more outlandish proposals for new energy and climate technologies, including space-based solar power and geoengineering techniques. With early-stage R&D a low-cost investment, putting money behind these potentially high-payoff technologies has no downside, they say.
Read on for excerpts from Energy and Environment Daily's coverage of the AAAS panel...
Continue reading "Energy Experts Call for High-Risk, High-Reward Energy Innovation" »
All of these elements are necessary, but none by themselves sufficient.
Share
by Roger Pielke, Jr.
This post summarizes, in capsule form, what I believe to be the necessary elements of any successful suite of policies focused on climate mitigation and adaptation. This post is short, and necessarily incomplete with insufficient detail, nonetheless, its purpose is to set the stage for future, in depth discussions of each element discussed below. The elements discussed below are meant to occur in parallel. All are necessary, none by itself sufficient. I welcome comments, critique, and questions.
Continue reading "Elements of Any Successful Approach to Climate Change" »
|
