Messing with nature more won’t fix the messes we’ve already made 4

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 8:44 am
   20 Mar 2008

   Butter and Jam
   
   People don't really want to change their lifestyles at all.  
   Most want to live in a nice full sized house, in a pleasant suburban green neighborhood with ample parks and good schools.  They want their own bedroom, a 50 inch TV and choice of gaming consoles.
   If they desire "community", they can haul themselves to the soccer field or the mall by privately owned independent vehicles.   Or, they can just hook up with people on Facebook.
   Any politician who can keep that soda machine running will be elected King for Life.
   
   The Manhattan Declaration

   Permalink

2. 

   bigTom Posted 12:18 pm
   20 Mar 2008

   ridiculously alarmist!  There is hardly any doubt in my mind that we are not going to get emissions under control soon enough to avoid too high a level of GHG. Hansen in fact believes we may need to return to 325-250ppm (we are already at 385). Trying to create a cult of all geo-engineering is bad, could make if difficult when in twenty five to fifty years from now we infact may to do some. Im in full agreement with you that we don't want to give the message that delay in controlling emissions is acceptable because we can engineer our way out. We might be able to reduce future damage by geo-engineering however.
      Unfortunately the earth is no longer primarily a natural system, humans control too much of the planet, and many physical processes are not operating in any way close to the way they did prior to the human expansion of the last few hundred years. Attempts to mitigate damage need to be evaluated on their own merits/demerits. In my book, any environmental change that is done primarily for the global environmental effect is geo-engineering. We of course have a lot of major changes which are not done for environmental mitigation, but for other purposes. If we outlaw geo-engineering, we unbalance the system, as unintentional change is allowed, nut intentional is not.
      So what sorts of projects make what sort of sense -or not.
    (1) Avoidance of emissions in the first place. This is clearly the best from the standpoint of the earth.
    (2) Fixing the primary problem, concentrations of greenhouse gases. This can range from fairly benign means, changing farming practices to increase soil storage of CO2 should be uncontroversial. Reforestation should be uncontroversial. Ocean fertilization after (and only after) it has been shown by decades of scientific study to be useful. Using biomass for power combined with carbon capture and sequestration. And nonbiological industrial processes which absorb CO2.
    (3) Attempts to fix the earths energy balance, by reflecting more sunlight into space. These could be as simple, as encouraging light colored surfaces in sunny climates. Or as wild as high altitude sulfate injection. Perhaps we can create more cloud condensation nuclei over the oceans to increase cloud reflectivity (we are inadvertently doing this with ship emissions).
      Clearly these sorts of things are not equal in cost or systemic risk. Some of them will have favorable benefit to risk ratios. The current tasks should be to:
   
     Do the research to figure out what schemes are wise, and which schemes should be avoided. Avoid giving the impression that the existence of such research means we can delay emissions reductions. And avoid creating severe political/psychological resistance to emergency (planetary) medicine so that our descendants won't refuse to take if/when it is called for.  

   Permalink

3. 

   LPS Posted 1:14 pm
   20 Mar 2008

   LPSWe have taken out a loan, virtually free energy, from the earth in the form of ancient sunlight. It has enabled a level of growth unparalled in the history of the species. The bank account is running dry and the interest--climate change--is the gift that keeps on giving. Now the margin calls are in. Is the best course to pump "liquidity" into the system, only to deepen the crisis with unforseeable, unintended consequences?
   I say, let the system collapse naturally. It will be a different world, with fewer species and perhaps without humans at all. But there will be a new, more sustainable currency in place for the survivors.

   Permalink

4. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:24 am
   21 Mar 2008

   TimeTime has always been the leader in mass delusional media.  Maybe they are worried about the NYT taking their place at the head of the pack?
   Geo-engineering is just another diversion from the solutions we know will work over the next couple of decades to minimize and halt GHG climate change.
   Get back to the point.  Geo-engineer humankind's impact by putting us back into symbiosis with the living planet.  It's a doable and very profitable and uplifting revolution.
   Distributed renewable smart grid and conservation technology and organic agriculture can do it.  Instead of mirrors in space or iron in the ocean, how about solar panels on roofs and organic fertilizer in the farm fields?
   Give it up Time, go ahead and sell out to Rupert and you can put the "fair and balanced" logo on your propganda organ for corporatist empire.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink