Plans to purposefully re-engineer the world's climate got their first serious committee hearing yesterday.
The idea that we might be able to "geoengineer" the planet to purposefully change the climate has clearly moved from the fringes into the mainstream. Momentum has been building in recent years: an essay in an academic journal by a Nobel Prize winning scientist in 2006, articles in the Wall Street Journal and Foreign Policy, a largely private gathering of researchers at Harvard.
Recently things have really broken out. In addition to multiple articles and books in the popular media, the United Kingdom's Royal Society, the authoritative national academy of science there, issued an in-depth review of geoengineering and President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, has repeatedly stated that geoengineering must be on the table as a possible approach to addressing climate change.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives' Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing that its chairman, Bart Gordon (D-TN), said was, "the first time that a congressional committee has undertaken a serious review of proposals for climate engineering."
Gordon was quick to say that this doesn't mean he supported geoengineering, and that the consensus at the hearing seemed to be that no one should deploy geoengineering until we've done a lot more research. But the very fact of the hearing confirmed that influential people are starting to take geoengineering very seriously. It's no longer just a subject for gee-whiz fascination, with science-fiction-like scenarios such a vast parasol launched into space to shield the earth from the sun. Now scientists are formulating detailed research plans, start-ups are inventing new geoengineering technologies, and politicians and foreign policy experts are considering what all of this might mean for international relations.
So, why the sudden enthusiasm for proposals to tinker with the climate? These ideas aren't new, but until recently they've been largely kept under wraps while attention has been focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are probably three main reasons for the change. First, some view geoengineering as a cheap way to avoid costly conversions to zero-emissions technology, a potential technological fix that could help them stave off climate legislation. With geoengineering as an option, they argue, there's less of a rush. We'll just cool the planet until we can get around to switching to cleaner forms of energy.
But this could be mind-blowingly stupid. One of the most popular geoengineering approaches--shading the earth with a haze of sulfate particles in the upper atmosphere--would very likely lead to severe droughts. There are other potential side effects, but a purposeful act that causes the failure of crops for potentially hundreds of millions or billions of people could also lead to international conflict. Even geoengineering enthusiasts have admitted there's a chance of war.
The second reason why geoengineering is getting a serious hearing is that scientists are growing increasingly concerned that, even if we commit to drastically cutting emissions, we've already waited too long. By the time we actually reduce emissions, enough greenhouse gases will have accumulated to cause serious climate disasters. We may need geoengineering, then, in addition to fast cuts in emissions.
The third reason is that geoengineering is cheap, so cheap that a wealthy individual could do it. There's growing concern that unless we develop a science-based international consensus about the real dangers of geoengineering, someone will go off and do it on their own.
These last two reasons seem to have been in the back of Gordon's head during his opening remarks. "Geoengineering carries with it a tremendous range of uncertainties, ethical and political concerns, and the potential for catastrophic environmental side-effects. But we are faced with the stark reality that the climate is changing, and the onset of impacts may outpace the world's political and economic ability to avoid them," he said. "This issue is too important for us to keep our heads in the sand. We must get ahead of geoengineering before it gets ahead of us."
Not everyone is taking things seriously though. Just before the committee got underway, the ranking Republican on the committee, Ralph Hall (Texas), turned to Gordon and asked, "You can stand a little fun about that outrageous thing we're going to talk about today?" Then, during the hearing he compared geoengineering to "flying elephants."
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
allowed to consider.
Even the thought of such a thing is beyond scary, let alone letting a political body have any power
to decide to do such a thing.
devassocx
11/09/2009
Posts:59
So, if it becomes apparent that we've already crossed certain tipping points... inland glaciers that provide water to millions will disappear, Greenland ice sheet is beyond repair and will dramatically raise sea levels and/or permafrost locked GHGs set us on a path to true disaster... you would choose to see it play out rather than attempting to artificially correct what we have artificially created?
When serious scientists are warning that we might be forced into these measures, open debate before the eleventh hour would seem beneficial.
That said,there probably are better methods than the oft cited sulfate haze, which could cause droughts unless confined to polar regions and certainly does nothing to address the issue of CO2 based ocean acidification. Methods to enhance ocean carbon sinking and/or enhancing marine clouds would likely carry less risk of serious harmful side effects. They are also methods which should be getting funding, starting with small scale trials and growing progressively larger in order to get real scientific answers to their efficacy and potential negative effects. Of course for many in the environmental movement, their support for science stops short of wanting these questions answered.
rhapsodyingl...
11/09/2009
Posts:59
kstauff
11/09/2009
Posts:114
Those who understand the science are certainly getting very concerned. Scientists began to have concerns 25 years ago. By the early nineties the debate had ended within the reputable scientific community and concerns began rising further as it became apparent that the political will to address the problem was almost nonexistent around the world. Another 15 years later... scientists from leftish academic institutions as well as those scientists employed by conservative military organizations are all very concerned about the potential environmental, economic and geopolitical consequences of climate change.
rhapsodyingl...
11/09/2009
Posts:59
Why is it that the so-called "reputable" scientists like Mann and Briffa, whose methodologies and data have been obfuscated for years, are the ones that are above your reproach? Why is it that you seem unaware that just recently Briffa's work supporting the "hockey stick" was found to be at best incomplete and at worst potentially fraudulent? And why should I be concerned with who you consider reputable when you seem completely unaware of these facts?
What deeply concerns me is that those responsible for the control of information, namely the media, have seized upon climate change as a way to sell advertising. Politicians have taken the cause up to scare the public into all manner of schemes designed to tax consumers and line the pockets of the well connected. And here you are falling for and/or promoting this lie to the public. When you are ready to look at ALL of the science and not just those observations which support your ideological viewpoint, then come back and tell me who's reputable.
kstauff
11/10/2009
Posts:114
RealClimate.org is a very good site that has rather methodically addressed the "science" presented by the few deniers that still exist. While there are certainly still many disagreements in the scientific community about the details of greenhouse warming dynamics... the number of scientists that deny it is real and man made are a handful against hundreds or thousands.
I will offer no defense for media and politicians with regard to their motives or actions. Neither, however, has anything to do with the scientific process and the conclusions which have been reached based on decades of peer reviewed research.
rhapsodyingl...
11/10/2009
Posts:59
These are not trivial problems with their research, and they do not speak well for the credibility of the field of climatology. I would further state that your assertion that there are only a handful of scientists opposing AGW theory is understating the case. There are many scientists who disagree with the theory and many more that disagree with the degree of it's more outlandish predictions (e.g., Al Gore's apocalyptic visions).
And with regard to RealClimate, do you really intend to cite a website that routinely deletes well-reasoned comments that question their methodology? Is this how you believe science should be conducted? If so, I'm very afraid for what is passing as science these days.
kstauff
11/11/2009
Posts:114
Though having a Ph.D. myself, it is not in a field directly related to climate science. My opinions of any particular scientists data are therefore not something anyone should be swayed by. My overall opinions are based on my understanding of the scientific method and peer review, and the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus at this point.
Even if there are two climate scientists with bad data (and if it isn't the two you mentioned, there would undoubtedly be two somewhere) that hardly speaks poorly "for the credibility of the field of climatology"... a field with at least many hundred scientists if not thousands. Science is about consensus... any given scientist's work should be viewed with skepticism until reviewed and accepted by peers and the larger community.
Al Gore is not a scientist... he has nothing to do with the scientific consensus. If Al Gore has his own predictions that aren't cited to a particular paper or researcher, they should be summarily dismissed as coming from someone that isn't qualified.
rhapsodyingl...
11/12/2009
Posts:59
I must disagree with your assertion that Science is about consensus. My understanding is that Science is about the analysis of the observable world around us coupled with testable hypotheses which may support or disprove those hypotheses.
A brief review of the history of Science will show frequent consensus regarding a particular subject destroyed by a single experiment, better methodologies or new methods of observation. Obvious examples are found in astronomy, nuclear physics and medicine.
Science is NOT about consensus, it's about what may be reasonably concluded from repeatable experiments. It's not about the conjecture of climate models or the apocalyptic predictions of researchers who are motivated to save their theories at all costs. I suppose we'll have to politely disagree here.
kstauff
11/17/2009
Posts:114
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/20463/?a=f
bassmang5
11/09/2009
Posts:7
Why do we elect these guys? Where do they come from?
Water scarcity, climate change, pandemic illness, these are the types of problems I would expect Congress to discuss. Scary? Yes, they are all scary, but what other organization on this planet has the resources to affect real change and implement the changes necessary to impact these issues? What is frightening is that the Congressman who made that statement will likely be reelected next cycle and retain his seat on the House Science and Technology Committee.
In addition to writing the laws that protect our freedoms, Congress's job is to consider the best use of our collective resources to improve our security and quality of life. It is about time they listen to issues that have a time horizon past the next election cycle and devote real resources to meeting the upcoming global challenges.
The world is passing us by as our leaders argue about death panels for grandma. (Criticism is of the debate, not the validity of the healthcare crisis.) Somebody is going to figure out programming artifical intelligence, engineering the global climate, synthesizing superflus, etc. I am still of the mind that the US government teamed with our educational institutions should be the leaders in these areas and not multinational corporations, dictatorships, or well meaning(or otherwise motivated) ultra-wealthy individuals.
Pyle
11/09/2009
Posts:4
LWBales
11/09/2009
Posts:1
This fact, along with the fact that despite increasing CO2 levels the earth has not warmed appreciably in the last decade, should indicate to you that there are serious flaws in AGW theory. These are flaws which some scientists and politicians would rather you not know about because it means the end of the gravy train of funding and tax revenue. Don't be fooled by the hype and fear-mongering tactics. Just look at Al Gore's bottom line: he's gone from a worth of about $3 million in 2000 to over $100 million now.
kstauff
11/10/2009
Posts:114
Imagine a clean, safe and cost-effective energy solution - one that harnesses the Earth's own power to deliver a reliable, eco-friendly, and sustainable supply of electricity.
Enter Tenala Technology. Derived from 15 years of intense research and experimentation, Tenala Technology is the first of its kind, and presents an answer to the planet's energy crisis.
norhussein
11/15/2009
Posts:1