<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for To solving our global warming problem]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/ Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:54:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/1 Dead on analogy

"It's as if the doctor says you have a disease that can definitely be cured by diet and exercise, but you opt for expensive chemotherapy -- even though the doctor can't guarantee the results but is pretty certain the side effects would be as bad as the disease."

Might steal it in the future.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world


]]> Dead on analogy

"It's as if the doctor says you have a disease that can definitely be cured by diet and exercise, but you opt for expensive chemotherapy -- even though the doctor can't guarantee the results but is pretty certain the side effects would be as bad as the disease."

Might steal it in the future.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world


]]> Comment #2 by odograph http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/ Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:54:15 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/2 geo

Seems to me, we are doing reckless geo-engineering on a global scale, and that is the GW problem in a nutshell.

In response to that ... can we really find an answer in semantics?  Human activities that are not "geo-engineering" are good and sufficient to correct the damage?  Or is that more a litmus test than an answer?

I mean, "halting deforestation" is geo-engineering in the strict definition ... is it "in" or "out?"

(maybe it's the "reckless" part that is the better discriminator.)

]]> geo

Seems to me, we are doing reckless geo-engineering on a global scale, and that is the GW problem in a nutshell.

In response to that ... can we really find an answer in semantics?  Human activities that are not "geo-engineering" are good and sufficient to correct the damage?  Or is that more a litmus test than an answer?

I mean, "halting deforestation" is geo-engineering in the strict definition ... is it "in" or "out?"

(maybe it's the "reckless" part that is the better discriminator.)

]]> Comment #3 by odograph http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/ Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:18:02 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/3 Yikes!

You quote Mr. Holden (though you did not include his previous sentence, recommending further study into geo-engineering) ... but what comes immediately after your quote?

The second approach--increasing removal rates of GHG and soot from the atmosphere--has considerable promise, above all in the domain of afforestation and reforestation (wherein building up the global "standing crop" of trees pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere and stores it in wood and soil organic matter). The total carbon currently stored in all the world's vegetation is estimated at 500-700 billion tonnes of C; increasing this by as much as 20% seems unlikely, and that would take care of only 100-150 billion tonnes of the 600-900 billion tonne requirement. (Whether the carbon stocks in soil, as opposed to vegetation, can be increased at all in a warming world is unclear; the higher temperatures may well increase decomposition rates on the average, driving carbon out of the soil and
into the atmosphere.)

Geez, not only is that geo-engineering, it runs a bit at odds with your "trees" post!

]]> Yikes!

You quote Mr. Holden (though you did not include his previous sentence, recommending further study into geo-engineering) ... but what comes immediately after your quote?

The second approach--increasing removal rates of GHG and soot from the atmosphere--has considerable promise, above all in the domain of afforestation and reforestation (wherein building up the global "standing crop" of trees pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere and stores it in wood and soil organic matter). The total carbon currently stored in all the world's vegetation is estimated at 500-700 billion tonnes of C; increasing this by as much as 20% seems unlikely, and that would take care of only 100-150 billion tonnes of the 600-900 billion tonne requirement. (Whether the carbon stocks in soil, as opposed to vegetation, can be increased at all in a warming world is unclear; the higher temperatures may well increase decomposition rates on the average, driving carbon out of the soil and
into the atmosphere.)

Geez, not only is that geo-engineering, it runs a bit at odds with your "trees" post!

]]> Comment #4 by odograph http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/ Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:20:17 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/4 Actually

You broke a sentence to make your quote, you ... won't say it.

Hodren:

"The third approach is worthy of further study, but the "geo-engineering" approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high
costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."

Romm quoting Hodren:

"The 'geo-engineering' approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."

How embarassing.


]]> Actually

You broke a sentence to make your quote, you ... won't say it.

Hodren:

"The third approach is worthy of further study, but the "geo-engineering" approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high
costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."

Romm quoting Hodren:

"The 'geo-engineering' approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."

How embarassing.


]]> Comment #5 by sindark http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/ Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:02:22 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/5 Insurance

I agree that geo-engineering is a bad option. That said, it may still be worth investigating just in case we find ourselves in an accelerating climate change situation and no other options remain on the table.

If we cross a tipping point such that forests and oceans start emitting a lot more GHGs than they absorb, we may need some drastic options in reserve. Certainly, they will have adverse consequences - so does using electrical pulses to re-start someone's heart - but that doesn't mean there is no reason to investigate it.

]]> Insurance

I agree that geo-engineering is a bad option. That said, it may still be worth investigating just in case we find ourselves in an accelerating climate change situation and no other options remain on the table.

If we cross a tipping point such that forests and oceans start emitting a lot more GHGs than they absorb, we may need some drastic options in reserve. Certainly, they will have adverse consequences - so does using electrical pulses to re-start someone's heart - but that doesn't mean there is no reason to investigate it.

]]> Comment #6 by odograph http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/ Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:19:43 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/geo-engineering-is-not-the-answer/6 blankets

That's pretty much where I'm at sindark.  I disagreed with the blanket headline, and then when I found how that sentence had been molded in the quote it became clear to me.

This is about whether we want to close the door on investigation, on all future study and invention, and create a religious injunction (against those things we categorize, politically, as "geo-engineering").

P.S. - remember Terra Preta soils? ... geo-engineering.

]]> blankets

That's pretty much where I'm at sindark.  I disagreed with the blanket headline, and then when I found how that sentence had been molded in the quote it became clear to me.

This is about whether we want to close the door on investigation, on all future study and invention, and create a religious injunction (against those things we categorize, politically, as "geo-engineering").

P.S. - remember Terra Preta soils? ... geo-engineering.

]]>