Ferraris for all

Scientific American has an extensive feature on geoengineering in its November issue including references for further study. It looks at such possible technologies as injecting sulphur dioxide into the upper stratosphere, spraying seawater in the troposphere and building huge “blinds” in space to act as a sunshade. At least the magazine takes the discussion seriously although a related editorial ends by coming out against the technology on several grounds: the danger of side effects, cost and the false sense of security it would engender.

To me there is much room for further investigation and debate.

Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering, science, technology

The Economist (11 September) notes a significant shift in the environmentalist attitude towards climate change. Rather than just pushing mitigation they are also promoting adaptation as a complement to it. To quote the opening paragraph of the article:

“‘I used to think adaptation subtracted from our efforts on prevention. But I’ve changed my mind,’ says Al Gore, a former American vice-president and Nobel prize-winner. ‘Poor countries are vulnerable and need our help.’ His words reflect a shift in the priorities of environmentalists and economists.”

The magazine attributes this shift to two factors: evidence that climate change is happening more quickly than previously expected and that the more marginal groups in the world will be hit harder by the trend.

As this blog has already noted it is also clear that many environmentalists are increasingly looking to geo-engineering (see posts of 22 July 2008, 31 July 2008 and 5 September 2008).

Unfortunately all these shifts seem to be driven by a panic reaction to climate change. Few are challenging the implicit assumption that we need to curb consumption growth to deal with the problem.

Even the concept of “mitigation” is problematic. It lumps together measures which are essentially about rationing (such as striving to use less energy in the home) with the development of new or less carbon generating technology (such as atomic power, hydroelectric power, nuclear fusion and more fuel efficient technologies).

Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering

There have been several interesting articles and discussions this week but until now I have been too busy to blog them all. Here is a quick round-up:

* Debate on geo-engineering. The Royal Society (Britain’s premier science organisation) has published a series of papers in its Philosophical Transactions on geo-engineering. That in turn prompted a substantial article in the Economist (6 September edition) and a piece by Oliver Tickell (an environmental campaigner) on the Guardian comment is free site supporting geo-engineering but only if it is linked to a reduction in emissions.

* Book on Nazi’s green credentials. I came across this when I heard radio presenters making fun of the title How Green were the Nazis?. To me it is a perfectly reasonable question and the book looks interesting. There is no doubt that many Nazis supported what are today classified as environmental ideas - which does not mean that all environmentalists are Nazis. The most serious critique I could find of the book was in Haaretz (Israel’s leading newspaper).

* Critique of Garrett Hardin’s classic article on “The tragedy of the commons” from a leftist viewpoint. Available here.

* Article on conservative assumptions of organic food movement. Conservative in a literal Burkean sense. Available here.

* Poll on hostility to local development in America, Britain and Canada. Available here.

* James Heartfield on Enron as a pioneer of environmentalism. Based on extracts from his latest book. Available here.

Labels: book, development, economics, environment, finance, food, geo-engineering

This week’s BBC Radio 4 Analysis programme, presented by Frances Cairncross, included the most detailed popular discussion of geo-engineering I have come across so far. In broad terms three possible techniques were identified:

• Removing carbon dioxide from the oceans.
• Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
• Using lenses or mirrors to divert sunlight from the planet.

However, the discussion is still wracked with anxiety. On the one hand, some are arguing that things are getting so bad that geo-engineering might be necessary despite the possibility of damaging unintended consequences. On the other hand, others are worried that discussing geo-engineering could shift the discussion away from decarbonisation. An added worry seems to be that developing countries such as China and India – those that most need great increases in energy supply - could take a lead in developing the technology.

It is a pity there cannot be a more confident, forward-looking debate.

Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering, radio, science

Evidently geo-engineering - using high technology solutions to modify the climate - is gaining interest according to a feature in the Christian Science Monitor (16 July):

“Launch myriad mirrors into space to deflect a fraction of sunlight from reaching Earth. Seed the stratosphere with sulfur or other particles to cut some of the sun’s rays. Bioengineer trees to soak up huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the air. Scatter unmanned self-powered ships to roam the world’s oceans funneling sea spray high in the sky to help form protective clouds.”

Unfortunately the move seems more motivated by pessimism about other solutions than optimism about human ingenuity or the power of technology.

Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering

This week’s Economist has an interesting piece on geo-engineering in its technology quarterly (subscription required). Rather than curb emissions such techniques rely on large-scale planetary engineering to counteract climate change. Although the Economist says it was discussed in a report to the American president as far back as 1965 it is generally disliked by environmentalists. However, schemes being currently discussed by top scientists include building a giant sunshade in space, spreading tiny particles in the atmosphere to deflect the sun’s rays and blasting tiny droplets of salt water into the air.

Such ideas have previously already been discussed recently in a New York Times article and a piece on spiked. George Monbiot has also attacked geo-engineering in his Guardian column (and see my 30 August 2006 dispatch).

Labels: climate, environment, geo-engineering, spiked, technology

It is unusual for environmentalists to want to discuss the viability of geoengineering - large scale projects designed to modify the climate - as a solution to global warming. Normally they emphasise that curbing emissions of greenhouse cases must be central to any strategy of dealing with global warming. Greens are loath to give credibility to any alternative strategies for dealing with the problem.

But yesterday George Monbiot launched a scathing attack on geoengineering in one of his regular Guardian columns. No doubt he was partially motivated by the fact that such a scheme was recently proposed by Paul Crutzen, winner of the 1995 prize for chemistry, in this month’s issue of Climatic Change. Crutzen suggests pumping sulphate particles into the stratosphere to help counter global warming. Monbiot - who is not a scientist - counters that declining rainfall would mean that hundreds of thousands of Africans could die of starvation as a result.

But to me the word “responsible” in the following paragraph from Monbiot’s article is the giveaway. His main concern is not the science but upholding a morality based on lower consumption:

“The only responsible way to tackle climate change is to reduce the amount of climate-changing gases we emit. To make this possible, we must suppress the political and economic costs of the necessary cut (added emphasis).”

Monbiot’s book on climate change is published by Penguin next month

Labels: climate, consumption, economics, environment, geo-engineering