Eartheasy

Navigation

Blog > Science and Transportation > Geoengineering – will schemes to reverse global warming do more harm than good? RSS

Geoengineering – will schemes to reverse global warming do more harm than good?

Browse LED Lighting

Join the Eartheasy Community

Sign up for our Newsletter:

* indicates required


Perhaps we had better use our energies to adapt and leave nature to take its course.

By James Lovelock, The Guardian Posted Sep 29, 2009

The idea of serious scientists and engineers gathering to discuss schemes for controlling the world’s climate would a mere 10 years ago have seemed bizarre, or something from science fiction. But now, well into the 21st century, we are slowly and reluctantly starting to realise that global heating is real. We may have cool, wet summers in the UK, but we are fortunate compared with the Inuit, who see their habitat melting, and Australians and Africans who suffer intensifying heat and drought. We should not be surprised that public policy is edging ever nearer to geoengineering, the therapy our scientists are considering for a fevered planet.

Our senior scientific society, the Royal Society, met at the start of the month to launch the report “Geoengineering the Climate” and to hear from its representative scientists. The meeting was hosted by the president, Lord Rees, and the chairman was Professor John Shepherd, who chaired the study group. The goal, as Prof Shepherd explained in the Guardian in April, was to investigate theories of “intervening directly to engineer the climate system, so as to moderate the rise of temperature” and to “separate the real science from the science fiction”.

Geoengineering is about deliberately changing the air, oceans or land surface of the world to offset global heating with the hope of restoring the cooler world we enjoyed in the last century. We are now fairly sure that the Earth has grown hotter by about one degree Celsius as a consequence of our own action in taking away as farmland the forests and other ecosystems that previously acted to keep the Earth cool. We also have increased by 6% the flow of CO2 into the air by burning coal, oil and natural gas. If we started global heating, can we reverse it by engineering?

The first scientist to consider geoengineering seriously was the Russian geophysicist Mikhail Budyko. In the 1970s he proposed that we could offset global heating by spreading in the stratosphere a fine dispersion of particles that reflected sunlight back to space; he based the idea on the observation that volcanic eruptions that did this were followed by global-scale cooling. He suggested that we could mimic the effects of a volcanic eruption by putting an aerosol into the stratosphere. His idea was confirmed by the detailed observations and analysis of the effect of Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991. It injected 20m tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere and this soon oxidised to form the white reflecting particles that offset global heating for three years. It is within our capacity to put this much sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere.

There are other ways of reflecting sunlight: large mirrors or diffusers of sunlight put in orbit around the sun. One of the more promising and controllable reflection methods was put forward by John Latham and Stephen Salter, who proposed spraying very fine droplets of sea water from the ocean surface to make the natural surface clouds, called marine stratus, whiter.

As well as cooling by reflecting sunlight away we could cool by removing the carbon dioxide or methane from the air. Klaus Lackner has proposed making artificial trees to do this; others, following the lead of Johannes Lehmann, would sooner see vegetation capture CO2 and then, after harvest, turn the plant waste into charcoal and bury it.

Geoengineering is like trying to cure pneumonia by immersing the patient in a bath of icy water; the fever would be cured but not the disease.

Geoengineering implies that we have an ailing planet that needs a cure. But our ignorance of the Earth system is great; we know little more than an early 19th-century physician knew about the body. Geoengineering is like trying to cure pneumonia by immersing the patient in a bath of icy water; the fever would be cured but not the disease.

Many of us feel a sense of unease about using geoengineering to escape global heating. Most of the planetary therapies have side effects, potentially as severe as the disease itself. We know that the cooling by Pinatubo was accompanied by droughts; cooling alone does nothing to prevent the ocean growing ever more acid as the carbon dioxide dissolves in the water.

Before long, global heating could reach a level that makes geoengineering an enticing option. Indeed, cautiously applied it may help by buying us time either to adapt to climate change or to develop a practical scientific cure. We have, as yet, no comprehensive Earth system science; in such ignorance I cannot help feeling that attempts by us to regulate the Earth’s climate and chemistry would condemn humanity to a Kafkaesque fate from which there may be no escape. Better, perhaps, to learn from the wiser physicians of the early 19th century; they knew no cure for common diseases but also knew that by letting nature take its course, the patient often recovered. Perhaps we, too, had better use our energies to adapt and leave recovery to Gaia; after all, she has survived more than three billion years and has kept life going all that time.

James Lovelock is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist and futurist. He proposed the Gaia hypothesis, in which the Earth functions as a superorganism. His most recent book is The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning.

Posted in Science and Transportation Tags , ,
  • Reed

    These measures will have to be looked at individually, we can't just write them all off as useless. Too many pepole today are still in denial about climate change and we won't have time to change our lifestyles enough to make any difference in the climate. I fear that our only hope will be some sort of scientific intervention.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Optimist5 Optimist5

    The main problem is overpopulation. If it's not going to get fixed – nothing will work and things will only get worse.

  • BlarneyBob

    Iron fertilization of the oceans are a form of CO2 capture from ambient air: This would be the preferred method of geoengineering, as it effectively reverses the cause of climate change. Fertilization has been demonstrated to be a cost-effective method. "Recent marine trials suggest that one kilogram of fine iron particles may generate well over 100,000 kilograms of plankton biomass. . . The maximum possible result from this technique, assuming the most favourable conditions and disregarding all practical considerations,is 0.29W/m2 of globally-averaged negative forcing[5], which is almost sufficient to reverse the warming effect of about 1/6th of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

    The technique has been tried and found to be effective more than every other technique mentioned except land use and forestation.

  • Dean

    No one method will fix the problem that took centuries to create. In order to achieve the dream of sustainable development it's going to take a whole picture approach of looking for renewable energy, reducing CO2 emissions, recycling, and reforestation. The current practice of regulation on a country by country basis makes it extremely difficult for a coordinated effort. The UN efforts help, but greater participation is required.

    Dean Calhoun
    Affygility Solutions
    http://affygility.com

  • Harikamp3indir

    These measures will have to be looked at individually, we can't just write them all off as useless. Too many pepole today are still in denial about climate change and we won't have time to change our lifestyles enough to make any difference in the climate. I fear that our only hope will be some sort of scientific intervention.

  • purcell

    Engineers are also itching to build artificial trees with the aim of soaking up CO2. But won't the CO2 burned in their construction wipe out any gains? I discuss this and the place of 'agroforestry' in our sustainable future in my weblog, http://solarukweblog.wordpress.com/, under the posting 'Chicken Feed'. SolarUK is at the forefront of advanced but increasingly cost-effective (as gas and electricity prices shoot upwards) renewable technologies, producing solar hot water systems which will work effectively in cooler climates.

Blog > Science and Transportation > Geoengineering – will schemes to reverse global warming do more harm than good?