When Will Geoengineering “Tip”?
Let’s Hope Real Public Dialogue, Rather than Scandal, Will Be the Trigger
SOURCE: NASA
The titanic issues that surround the prospect of modifying the planet, currently off the radar for most Americans, could come up in a very big way in the relatively near future. We need leaders to start talking to the public before that happens.
Print
Science Insider had the scoop: It appears the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, is holding a meeting at Stanford University soon on the controversial topic of geoengineering, or modifying the planet artificially in order to offset the effects of global warming. This is newsworthy for at least two reasons: The U.S. government has, thus far, kept the subject of geoengineering at a relative arm’s-length; and one reason for that shyness is the extremely checkered past history of U.S. military ventures in weather modification, including the notorious attempt to use “weather warfare” to our advantage in Vietnam.
Science, Cultured
Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney surveys the interactions between science, politics, and culture. He is the author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.” (Photo: flickr.com/sarahfelicity)
I’m not personally scandalized to learn of DARPA holding a conference or having a discussion. One thing about geoengineering, after all, is that not only may we want to do it, but we might also have reason to be concerned about someone else doing it—so the more dialogue, the better.
Indeed, I suspect that at some point soon this topic, currently off the radar of most Americans, is going to come up in a very big way, whether through politico-media scandal or, very preferably, otherwise.
Why? Put simply, because at least in some versions, geoengineering is likely to be cheap, and likely to work. These two attributes are already proving intellectually irresistible to many climate scientists, who at minimum call for geoengineering to be “studied,” and who are already doing so themselves in climate models. At some point, as we continue to struggle to get a handle on the global warming problem, they may also prove practically irresistible to politicians and governments.
In a story in Wired magazine last year, I explained the most likely geoengineering scenario to get serious consideration: Infusion of the stratosphere with sulfate aerosol particles, which will reflect sunlight and cause global cooling. This we know with something bordering on certainty: It’s precisely what volcanic eruptions do. Our planet has already run the experiment. What other environmental side effects would occur is not nearly as certain, of course—this is where the real scandal and controversy kicks in—but in a situation of climate crisis, we might not have the luxury of worrying about them.
Indeed, a group of experts—Stanford’s David Victor, Carnegie Mellon’s M. Granger Morgan, and others—recently made roughly this case in Foreign Affairs (subscription required). It’s just the latest in a series of articles by major climate researchers, or policy wonks, essentially sounding the alarm about geoengineering: This is real, this is very possible, this is scary, this requires attention.
The question to my mind is when the broader political discourse will catch on to what these experts are already realizing. We pay vastly too little attention to global warming in the media; geoengineering is nowhere on the news agenda at all. Yet it’s one of many examples of a coming scientific controversy that is reasonably forseeable in advance—at least to those who are paying attention—but nevertheless seems doomed to catch the broader public unawares at some undetermined point in the future (think of cloning and the Raelians). Whereupon, a reasoned dialogue about the pros and cons of climate control, which is increasingly coming within humanity’s grasp, will probably be the last thing we see.
What would I propose instead? That some important figure in the media or our government broach a dialogue on this topic now, at the very highest of levels. That everyone find some way of going to see the documentary Owning the Weather, which is about this subject and will be premiering at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival on April 3rd. That Congress hold serious hearings. And so on. We must try in all conceivable ways to create a broader dialogue, one that goes far beyond the scientific, expert community.
I’m perfectly aware of the counterargument to this stance: Some worry that the more we discuss geoengineering and give people the idea that it could be a panacea—a faster, cheaper way of averting global warming—then the more likely we could be as a society to go for the easy “techno-fix,” rather than take the hard steps needed to really cut down our emissions. It’s a serious concern, but I believe it must be weighed against several others.
First, science and technology could make geoengineering a foregone conclusion before we’ve even had a chance to determine what we think about it. That will hardly lead to the best societal decision-making. And second, everything I know about global warming suggests that having a backup plan does make a lot of sense. We don’t know how bad it’s going to get, or how fast, or how effective (or ineffective) our eventual climate policies will be. And we only have one planet.
Sadly, there could come a time when nothing is off the table.
Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”
Comments on this article
Although it is a year old, my discussion here on iron fertilization of the oceans is still germaine. I’m not at liberty to go into all the details, but I can tell you that MANY government scientists are seriously discussing the consequences of geoengineering the oceans to capture carbon. Given that adding CO2 to the water will make it more acid, and possibly cause local to regional scale Harmful Algal Blooms, hypoxia, and even complete overturning of phytoplankton communities, many of us in the ocean fields are VERY leery of this approach. Skeptical may even be an appropriate word.
Which is why I worry when a science reporter I know and respect starts saying that geoengineering might be a good idea.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:16 amAtmospheric geoingineering is the elephant in the room. Since when did our government ask permission to do anything? Our skies here in Northern California are regularly saturated with what we can only assume are “jet particulate trail”. Grid patterns, X’s, and at times dozens of parallel lines creating a dirty white haze that covers the sky.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:26 pmCitizens in all North State counties are taking rain water heavy metal tests at a state certified lab. There are massive quantities of heavy metal in all of nearly 4 dozen tests so far in our region alone. Aluminum, for example, has had a 50,000 percent increase in only three years. No, this is not a misprint. The most recent test was 3450 ppb for aluminum. Anyone that knows anything about this metal knows this amount is a highly toxic level, to say nothing of the ongoing accumulation in our soils and rivers.Simular reports are showing up across the country and from Europe. Primary patents on ‘geoingineering’ list aluminum oxide as the first component of ‘proposed’ sprayed aerosols from aircraft. Multiple agencies in our area, including the USDA, are studying a recent and rapidly accelerating die off of flora, fish, and amphibians. Resparitory and neurolugical disorders are also sky rocketing. Numerous and recent studies make clear how deadly ‘bioavailable’ aluminum is to life forms. In addition, the ’solar obscuration’ caused by atmospheric geoingineering exponentially reduces solar power potential. On top of all this, there is the disruption of weather patterns that are a direct result of excessive aerosols in the atmosphere. (numerous studies from mainstream science institutions are also available on this issue).
Atmospheric geoingineering is does appear a proposal, but an ongoing and very lethal reality.
Chris-
Interesting piece…suggest you check out Jim Fleming (Colby College) who has written a few very interesting pieces on the history of plans to do ‘planetary engineering.’ Best,
Patrick
March 20th, 2009 at 4:14 pmI’d be more cautious about saying things like “it’s likely to be cheap, and to work.” If you’re going to expound on this, you owe it to yourself to read up on Joe Romm’s thoughts on geoengineering:
Memo to DARPA, Pentagon: Stay out of geoengineering — aka climate manipulation!
March 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pmhttp://climateprogress.org/2009/03/16/darpa-pentagon-military-geoengineering/
We have some data: A meteor put 100 Billion tons of sulphur in the air which led a long “Nuclear Winter” and killed the Dinosaur.
“A 6-mile-wide asteroid, named “Chicxulub”, impacted 65 million years ago with an energy of 300 million Megatons and left a U-shaped crater, 110 to 185-mile wide, in the north coast of the Yucatán Peninsula, centered on the town of Chicxulub and includes Mérida, the capital.
The crater is buried by limestone one kilometer thick but the contour is very clear in radar pictures from Endeavor Shuttle [Scientific American: Earth from Sky, Dec-94]. The composition of impact glass bead tektites in Yucatan matches glass bead tektites found in Haiti.
The impact created a fire storm and hurled trillions of tons of dust plunging the Earth into a dark winter with temperatures down tens of degrees. Physicist Luis Alvarez said over 100 Billion Tons of Sulfur were hurled to the upper Atmosphere where droplets reflected sun rays and the earth froze in four years -sulfuric rains killed dinosaurs and most other animals and plants -but not the shark or the cockroach. Volcanoes often send sulphur to the air.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:05 pmAtmospheric geoingineering = CHEMTRAILS all around the world
March 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pmWillingly polluting the atmosphere can’t be good. This is the application of the same idea that led to bailing out the banks and other corporations that created the current economic crisis, effectively rewarding them for their incompetence and their bordering on criminal greed. Geoengineering lets the oil industry and other high carbon emitters off the hook, passing the burden of the consequences on to future generations. No wonder the American Enterprise Institute is applauding the initiative.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:21 amGeoengineering is already, obviously by looking at satellite photos, begun. It is probable that jet fuel is already being distributed with aluminum oxide additive on a large scale. Hughes has a patent on the process from 1990 so there should be a money trail about where it is being used and how much.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pmThe main idea is to assume we will have to use geoengineering and then to pick the best model. To me, it’s already certain: Use a clean(est) alternative energy source for pulling the carbon back close to where it was in the fist place. All other thoughts have serious limitations. This one might be economically more expensive, but what does it really mean to be economical anyway? Net things out including the externalities and what you get is obvious. If people would only get this right!!!
January 6th, 2010 at 4:36 am