>Home >How >Solutions >Options of Last Resort >Geoengineering

Saving the World: Three Problems at a Time

Options of Last Resort - Geoengineering

It includes concepts such as increasing the world's abeldo by introducing reflective aresoles into the atmoshpere or painting the roofs of our cities white to refelct sun light, to genetically modifying organisms to absorb more carbon, to fertilising ocean surfaces to increase productivity of CO2 absorbing algea (the last two are outside the IPCC definition).

Image from the BBC. See:website

Examples

White Roofs and Cool Pavements - low risk

Cities and towns are often hotter than the surounding country side because of dark surfaces that absorb heat and thermal mass that stores it. This is called the heat island effect.

Proposals exist to increase the amount of sunlight reflected form our roof tops and pavements and thus help cool the earth.

Hashem Akbari from the Heat Island Group Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in a presetation to the Fifth Annual California Climate Change Conference, Sacramento, CA 9 September 2008, titled "Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2", conlided that:

"1000 ft2 of a white roof, replacing a dark roof, offset the emission of 10 tonnes of CO2."(2)

Download presentation

Image above is from the Hashem Akbrair's presentation.

Deep Ocean Pumping - medium risk

Deep Ocean Pupming is where deep nutrient water 100-200m down is pumped to the surface, using long pipes and wave motion. Once at the surface it would stimulate biological activity in algea which would take up more CO2 from the amosphere and produce dimethyl sulphide which forms the basis of sunlight relecting clouds.

Jame Lovelock and Chris Rapley in a letter to the Nature in 2007 supported the concpet of deep ocean pumping (2) and the process is even being developed on a comercial basis by Atmocean. "Atmocean believes our wave-driven upwelling technology can play a critical role in mitigating these deleterious effects of CO2-induced warming, in the years and decades ahead."(3)

Image and text from the BBC. See:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7014503.stm

1. Buoy: Helps hold the pump in position
2. Pump: James Lovelock believes the tubes would be about 100m long to access deep cold water, and 10m wide; Phil Kithil thinks 200m long and 3m wide could be optimum
3. Valve: Could be at the top or bottom of the pipe; top perhaps preferable for maintenance. Water is drawn through the open valve on wave down slopes; no external power needed
4. Cold water: On wave up slopes, cool water spills out of the pump
5. Pump sites: Locations could also be chosen to reduce hurricane risk by cooling surface waters

Aerosols - high risk

In an effect to mimic the cooling effect of a volcanic eruption some geoengineering advocates are proposing adding dust, soot or sulphur in in increase the amount of sunlight reflected from earth.

Use of sulphur aerosols is supported by Tim Flannery (4), and some scienctist such as Robock et al (2008) think aerosols can signficantly reduce panetary temperatures, "It is clear from our results that if enough aerosols could be put into the stratosphere, they would cool the planet and even reverse global warming...if enough SO2 could be continuouslyinjected into the stratosphere, the global thermostat could be adjusted at any setting..."(5)

Aerosol Pollution Over India: Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC See: www.popsci.com.au

High Risk Options

We don't know who struck first - us, or them. But we know it was us that scorched the sky.
Morpheus - The Matrix (1999)

Proposposing geoengineer options as sollutions to climate change highlights the need for system thinking being taking into account when devloping solutions.

For example lets look at the proposal to put aerosoles such as sulphur into the earth's atmoshphere to reduce the amout of sunlight hitting the earths surface. With a reduction in sunlgiht hitting the earth's surface and consequently the earth's biosphere, CO2 absorption sequestration by plants will be reduced, food production wil decrease, the ocean algea that produce dimethyl sulphide (a key in forming rain clouds in many parts of the world) woud also decrease. It may be possible that reducing biosphere activity could actually result in more global warming rather than less due to a reduction in CO2 absorption by the biota and loss of sunlight reflecting clouds.

Like wise output of solar based power systems (thermal and PV) would aso decrease and thiswould create need to be responded by further reducing power comsumption or building new power producing infrastructure. Evaporation from the ocean may also reduce.

It woud seem some people advocating aerosol injection into the atmoshere are aware of potneital negative imapcts, for example

"But the consequences for the African and Asian summer monsoons could be serious,threatening the food and water supplies to billions of people."(4)

But the people putting forward such proposal actually endavoured to calculate the full effects of there activities? It would seem not by the response of Tim Flanery to a question about his support for a plan of last resort to pump sulphur into the atmosphere.

"The consequences of doing that are unknown."(4)

Robock etal (2008) sum up the realities of considering a geoengeering option.

"Whether we should use geoengineering as a temporary measure to avoid the most serious consequences of global warming requires a detailed evaluation of the benefits, costs, and dangers of different options."(5)

Distractions

Another problem with geoengineering is that some climate advocates are putting forward geoengineering as mainstream or first response option to climate change often paired with weak targets and goals, rather than a last resort.

This again is a systemic failure in the analysis of the problem. It would be much better to role out a 100% renewableenergy grid than attempt to darken the Earth's skies, however some of this type of support for geoengineering may have been prepetrated by the carbon industry in an attempt to maintain BAU and avoid having to take action themselves.

To Geo or not to Geo?

Many People advocating on climate and envrionmental issues are strongly opposed to the use of geoengineering. Here is one example from the Greenliving Tips wesite:

"Geoengineering is a term I'm increasingly seeing bandied around these days in relation to gaining the upper hand on global warming - and it scares the hell out of me, even more so than climate change.....In many ways it reminds me of the nursery rhyme about the old woman who swallowed a fly. She then swallowed a spider to catch the fly, then a bird to catch the spider.. and so on and so on; with the ultimate result of her dying after swallowing a horse. To me, this is what geoengineering represents - it's our "F" on the planetary report card."(6)

In part for the reasons listed above, many climate campaigners have until recently avoided referring to or even acknowledging geoengineering as legitimate response to climate change, however as more and more positive feedback loops begin to accelerate their impact on global warming and the human response continues to be woefully inadequate, more campaigners are accepting the geoengineering will most likely be a necessary response to the global climate emergency.

Solutions

• Low risk and low cost options should be implemented simultaneously with zzero emissions and sequestration policies.
• Geoengineer highrisk and high cost options should be developed in preparation for implementation at some point in the future.
• They should undergone rigours analysis for a flow on effects from their implementation.
• They should be as targeted as possible seek to limit their effect where possible, focusing on switching off critical feedback loops such as the melting of the summer Arctic ice.
• They must not be used to justify a lack of action on reducing our emissions to zero and activity drawing down atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.

Personal Actions

• Paint your roof white
• Keep informed
• Argue that they should only be used as an option of last resort

Target 300 Plan

• (None available)

References

(1) IPCC 2007, "Climate Change 2007", the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report., Working Group 3, Annex 1, Glossary, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg3.pdf

(2) Akbari, H. 2008, "Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2", Heat Island Group Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, presetation to the Fifth Annual California Climate Change Conference, Sacramento, CA 9 September 2008

(3) Lovelock, J, Rapley, C, 2007, Ocean pipes could help the Earth to cure itself,Nature 449, 403 (27 September 2007), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7161/full/449403a.html

(4) Atmocean, last viewed 6 November 2008, http://www.atmocean.com/

(5) Alexander, Cathy, T 2008, Tim Flannery's radical climate change 'solution', News.com.au, last viewed 6 November 2008, http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html

(6) Robock A,Oman L, Stenchikov GL 2008, Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113.

(7) Greenliving Tips, 2008, Geoengineering and the future, Published 09/3/2008, last viewed 6 November 2008, http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/291/Geoengineering-and-the-future.html

>Home >How >Solutions >Options of Last Resort >Geoengineering

300 ppm CO2 or below is the stabilisation target for a safe climate.