Geoengineering – that is, deliberate actions to modify the Earth’s climate to counteract the effects of human-induced climate change – seems to be slowly making its way into the scientific mainstream, if not yet public debate. The Royal Society, an organization whose history is deeply entwined with the founding of modern science, has weighed in, with a report on the current state of knowledge in the area:
Professor John Shepherd, who chaired the Royal Society’s geoengineering study(2), said, “It is an unpalatable truth that unless we can succeed in greatly reducing CO2 emissions we are headed for a very uncomfortable and challenging climate future, and geoengineering will be the only option left to limit further temperature increases. Our research found that some geoengineering techniques could have serious unintended and detrimental effects on many people and ecosystems – yet we are still failing to take the only action that will prevent us from having to rely on them. Geoengineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change.”
The report, aimed at an interested general audience, represents an accessible, authoritative, current, and reasonably comprehensive look at the issue. They conclude that at least some geoengineering techniques are feasible and likely to be effective. The bad news – some are likely to have a variety of undesirable side effects, including damage to the ozone layer. Nor will methods that somehow interfere with solar radiation levels do anything about Ocean acidification.
But, like the professor said, we’re not leaving ourselves much choice.
What really disturbs me about this is that with this steady procession of dire warnings issuing forth from truly credible scientific bodies, we do not here from our government whether they have read the reports, or how this affects their thinking on Global Warming Action. What the hell is going on? Are they following an eighteenth century battle philosophy of “wait till you see the whites of the enemies eyes” before doing anything?
It seems that the most credible policy advisors are economists, political think tanks or industry players. Ignore the science, ignore the histerical public, downplay the news reports, and what ever happens block out any sound from the Greens or the opposition, this can be solved with a party meeting or at a dinner event with industry. Do you get the feeling that we are all being schmoozed?
Just out of interest, are there ocean acidification denialists?
“Do you get the feeling that we are all being schmoozed?”
Reminds me of the scene in dining room of The Titanic, with the band playing and everyone busy eating and talking, while the iceberg looms ever closer outside the windows.
Don’t worry chaps, this thing is unsinkable and we have enough lifeboats…
BilB, sometimes I get the feeling we’re being abandoned (think Ben Elton’s Stark).
“Just out of interest, are there ocean acidification denialists?”
I once saw Bob Carter say in a talk something like this, that the idea of ocean acidification as a threat had been carefully planned. He didn’t spell it out, but it was obvious from context that he meant it was a way to keep the scare alive even if (when? not sure how confident he is about future trends) the warming stops.
One more thing, before I actually go and read the report: great to see they have a name for those forms of “geoengineering” which consist in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, namely, Carbon Dioxide Removal. I’ll chant that as a slogan a hundred times, because it is absolutely the way forward, and it’s a name which is free of the taint of the other, often madcap ideas. All that other stuff is generally a bad idea (though aerosols might be good if we needed cooling right away), but carbon dioxide removal is the endgame. Once we have that working on an economic basis, we’re done.
Mitchell Porter @6: “Carbon Dioxide Removal. I’ll chant that as a slogan a hundred times”
Now there’s an idea!!!
Carbon Dioxide Removal? I believe they are called “trees”. In large numbers, they are called “forests”, or “jungle” as in Amazon.
In engineering applications, Carbon Dioxide Removal might become known as “green algae farming”? Hope the government is giving some of its CCS largesse to the nation’s Biochemical Engineering departments to design these things?
Elise: fair point. But – as the report points out – there ain’t enough land to grow enough trees to absorb the relevant carbon.
I view geoengineering as inevitable on a large scale in my lifetime. I also view the world as getting well on the road to fucked up in my lifetime.
Coincidence, or something more?
There’s a Simpson’s quote for every occasion, and somehow changing the nature of the biosphere to solve this problem reminds me of:
I was recently at a meeting where a programme was proposed of geo-engineering [currently operating on a small scale although already costing millions of dollars] to remove acid sulfate soils from wetlands that had become dry and acidic due to geo-engineering on a large scale which is continuing essentially unabated.
Even the proposer saw the irony in that.
In a similar vein, I have heard that in the face of potentially disasterous wildfire seasons the Rudd government has sought to follow on from the spectacular success of the CPRS by engaging a noted economist to conduct a study of the wild fire problem. Following submissions the government is now (allegedly) in promising secret discussions with a national match manufacturing company who has proposed solving the fire problem with a new “clean” match. It is believed that this new match will be called Blonde Heads, and not have enough brightness to light anything. The new Blonde Heads, it is proposed, (allegedly) will be phased in over the next 50 years. The scheme calls for all used Blonde Heads to be extracted from the environment and sequestered safely underground. Specific user groups will be able to obtain an exemption from using the new Blondies. Initially a dozen cartons of Blondies a year will be available, with a review of the performance of the Blondes at the 15 year point. The report suggested (allegedly) that Peter Garret would be announcing the new Blonde Head scheme while the rest of the Parliament were on their Summer holiday break.
I don’t know if this report is true, but it has a very familiar feel.
Robert @8: “there ain’t enough land to grow enough trees to absorb the relevant carbon.”
How ’bout grass then, and we could go back to medieval practices of growing grass on the roof? Then we can put the goats up there to keep it short and convert it into goat milk, meat and methane? Oh bugger, cancel that…
Actually there is probably enough land to grow enough trees in the fullness of geological time, since all that extra carbon got into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels which came from buried plant material (hence its name “fossil fuel”).
We might be the next dinosaur bones, however…
Possibly true Robert [&8], you usually get such facts right.
But as part of the process of rectifying the pollution problem partly caused by the removal of trees in recent historical times, including last week, it would be a good idea to grow lots of useful trees on those large chunks of land that are now treeless and essentially unproductive even in conservative terms.
My Murraylands region has had 80% of its native vegetation removed, a process still occurring albeit thankfully minimally now.
The resultant land use, once you get away from the river, is very low in productivity whether in a gross extractive exploitative sense or a sustainable sense.
A good place to start, and there is a lot of land available here [I dunno maybe tens of thousands of square kms] and in similar degraded places.
See it as a part of a package of amelioration tactics.
One tool in the toolbox.
Ironically I used to grow trees here but can’t now.
No water.
there ain’t enough land to grow enough trees to absorb the relevant carbon.
‘s alright, we can put them in Antarctica once it warms a little more…
Hannah’s Dad: Just repeating the conclusions of the RS report.
The prospects of reforestation and soil carbon to make a contribution in Australia are undoubtedly fairly good. Like you say, one tool in the toolbox.
It’s just that it’s nowhere near enough on a global scale.
Robert @ 16, But wouldn’t it be a start, and a relatively useful contribution to make anyway?
I’m sure Professor Plimer would oblige if you asked him, Carbonsink.
geoengineering is what we’re doing right now.
FFS, they’re not talking about geoengineering in general, they’re specifically talking about engineering projects to force cool the planet. As distinct from the ones to make Kuwait uninhabitable or move the southern wheat belt closer to Perth.
Elise, I’m with you 100%. We could start by not chopping down existing forests.
I’m guessing the scale of the geoengineering works required to suck the carbon out of the air is somewhat similar to the scale of the thing putting the carbon into the atmosphere. i.e. modern civilisation in its entirety.
I’m also guessing that this geoengineering stuff will consume a lot of energy itself, which for the foreseeable future, means emitting a lot of carbon.
Frankly the whole idea sounds fanciful. Humanity can’t even get its arse into gear to slow the growth of its carbon emissions, let alone reduce them. Under what circumstances do you envisage us devoting 50% of GDP to geoengineering?
Sadly, I think “we” would be much more likely to devote 50% of GDP to geoengineering including creating more ghastly problems, so long as we got to spend the other 50% on carrying on exactly as we are now – but with sexier cars. With more Grunt.
Interestingly on tonight’s Q and A, soil carbon got a mention. Bill Heffernan was surprisingly good on his advocacy for the environment (while Tim Wilson was predictably woeful). The soil carbon issue got a plug here on LP last week, with a link to a site on Holistic Grasslands Management. It seems that with sustainable herd management, soil can be made to not only sequester carbon dioxide but also methane, actually sequestering more methane than cows produce by their burping. The site also claims that grasslands can potentially sequester more carbon dioxide than rainforests. Tony Burke has evidently heard of this, for on tonight’s Q and A he put the kibosh on soil carbon sequestration by declaring that there was no reliable way of measuring it. Given the Holistic Grasslands Management’s claims about the enormous potential for soil carbon sequestration, it’s certainly a topic that calls out for greater investigation.
Carbonsink: as I understand it, $300 USD/ tonne is a reasonable upper bound on the costs of air capture.
Per capita emissions? Let’s say 25 tonnes per annum.
That’s $7500 USD/year.
Australia’s per-capita GDP (at nominal exchange rates, the relevant figure here) is 50,000 USD per year.
One of the real ironies is that if the aerosol pollution that afflicts most of SE Asia, Asia and China was removed tomorrow the situation would be even more dire.
India is going gangbusters on coal, out here right now bying up big. So even more CO2 and aerosols.
One thing we can be sure of. It is going to have to reach utter crisis point before any-thing is done at all. I guess a rapid 2m sea level rise would possibly do it.
The other thing all you market solution guys can be sure of is that the “market” cannot fix this one. All this shit about “market solutions” is total and utter fantasy. In fact in the Huggy regime any-one proposing a “market solution” to the global warming crisis will be stood against the wall an beaten with limp cabbage leaves ubtil they recant.
Huggy
Interestingly, on Q&A last night, the British High Commisioner was lamenting the fact that the ‘debate’ over here is 10-15 years behind that in Europe where the denialists don’t seem to get the exposure they do here, and the debate has moved on.
And I think Anne Summers called the denailists lunatics before she was stopped by the two Tonys. Seems an apt description to me.
Does the report discuss the strategy of painting all roof surfaces white to reflect sunlight? It’s a million to one chance, but it just might work…
Andos, it’s funny you should mention that, I’m going to buy super-reflective paint for my roof this spring. It’s highly cost-effective. Only just tuned in to this sisue, and then was driving along the western ring road, noticing that >90% of the new houses had dark coloured tiles installed (but I also noticed that evaporative coolers are much more common now). WTF are they thinking?
Yes. Short version – not enough roofed area in the world to make a significant difference.
They also discuss a related strategy of covering the world’s deserts with mirrors, which they also discount as environmentally destructive and not particularly effective.
@22, its not that there isn’t a way to measure sequestration (there’s lots of ways), its that none of them are anywhere near cheap enough, or sufficiently rapid.
@11, were they talking physical excavation and carting away of ASS, or just in-situ treatment?
@ wilful
It could be local council regulations too. When we built on small town country NSW we had to fight to get a light coloured roof because the Council thought the roof might be too reflective and cause problems for pilots or something.
Well ok, lets call it 15% of GDP then. We can’t get $30/tonne done, how and when are we going to do $300/tonne? When the Opera House floods? It will be too late then anyway…
I’ve thought for a long time that our sealed roads should be involved in heat/energy capture. In the alternative, why not have the govt bankroll local councils/state govts to paint all the roads white? Might having both roofs and roads reflective help?
I have been following Peter Andrews’ Natural Sequence Farming activities for a while. Many of his ideas seem to have merit.
Here’s a “market approach” which I am surprised hasn’t been tried: a correlation between temperature increase/rising sea levels, and how much everyone’s house will be worth in the circumstances. In Australia, coast dwelling as we are, I would have thought such an arguement might be persuasive.
There’s a driver safety aspect to road colour (glare isn’t good, and the line markings need to be easily visible), but lighter shades of bitumen have been used more recently, I’ve heard. More dirt-coloured than black, sort of thing. Some bigger roads are pale concrete, too. Just not sure how they perform in comparison to the older styles of road construction – its all very well to have good albedo values, but if you have to repair or replace the road more often then energy is still being wasted.
NSF’s pretty good too, just not in areas prone to salinity/high water tables. Increasing water retention in those landscapes is a bug, not a feature. Also, the wide-eyed evangelistic fervour with which the method is promoted kind of creeps me out tbh…
Tim @ 18
The oceans are basic not acid. However the oceans are less basic than they were.
I’ve been practicing something similar to natural sequence farming (without much of the farming bit yet) on my 20 acre paddock, Grumphy. Of course, I suspect my neighbours up there just think I’m too bloody lazy to spray out my weeds properly, but it’s paying off: it’s the greenest 20 acres in the area.
I’ve read Andrews’ books, and while I think he has a good understanding of how landscapes function, some of his explanations are … well … bizarre.
Interesting! What kind of country are you working in?
I’d love to see a more rigorous approach to monitoring NSF as it establishes. Are you doing much in the way of documentation? Even photos and basic descriptive observations are useful, in the absence of the resources needed for proper soil and veg sampling/monitoring.
Jhon Michelmore, I’m assuming your comment is addressed to me as I seem to be the only Tim who’s commented on this thread. I’m aware the oceans are basic, thanks. But I’m not quite sure of the point of your comment.
Sorry, John. I’m having trouble typing today.
My reading of the linked report views geoengineering as last resort territory, very uncertain in its effectiveness and bearing potential consequences which may be as problematic as that for which it was offered as a solution.
James Lovelock made much the same conclusion in his book earlier this year:
““But before we start geoengineering we have to ask: Are we sufficiently talented to take on what might become the onerous permanent task of keeping the Earth in homeostasis? Consider what might happen if we start by using a stratospheric aerosol to ameliorate global warming – even if it succeeded it would not be long before we faced the additional problem of ocean acidification. This would need another medicine, and so on. We could find ourselves enslaved in a Kafkaesque world from which there was no escape.” [Pg 103, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning, Allen Lane, London]
What is also missing from the Royal Society report is the acknowledgment our knowledge of climate science, and its interactions with other planetary systems is not sufficient; either to make decisions concerning geoengineering or to assume that CO2 levels of 450ppm are survivable as far as our expectations for the continuance of human society as it currently is.
The reductions in greenhouse gases emissions that must occur require our governments to impose the necessary legal frameworks to bring it about. Their continued failure to do so make the prospect of this pandora box, geoengineering, an appalling and likely part of our futures. It is time we dealt with the problem, not salved the symptoms.
Re Albedo Roads – I pondered the glare aspect – I’d assume they’d use black (or some special tested shade) for road markings. They might work better than our current ones at night – ie better visibility bouncing off headlamps. As to different road materials, the different colours being used right now seem to be a local thing (?) The ACT still has black ones, counntry NSW (out Dubbo/Cobar/Burke way) had funny sand coloured ones (which I really liked) and I’ve seen the concrete type ones in Sydney.
RE NSF: To Grumphy: I agree re the creepy evangelising! Mr Irving, would you provide more information re what you’re doing? I’m looking forward to buying up some degraded land and having a bit of a fiddle myself. (my background is agriculture/horticulture).
To quote the RS report:
“Surface albedo approaches (SRM technique, including white roof methods, reflective crops and desert reflectors) these were found to be ineffective, expensive and, in some cases, likely to have serious impacts on local and regional weather patterns.”
However SRM techniques are being looked at to ameliorate Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect; urban centres can be 5 degrees C higher than surrounding rural fringes. A consequence of heat stored during the day by surfaces and built forms and human activity outputs from transport, industry and building climate controls, it has significant implications for urban centres faced with higher average world temperatures. But given the data that led to the above statement….
Well put, Bernice.
Grumphy/Deslivres – the paddock in question is in the Robertstown valley, about 100km north of Adelaide. It’s been used for wheat and sheep (and peas and barley and probably canola) for about 100 years, I reckon. It has a (usually dry) creek running down the middle of it. This is at least 5 years old, and shows none of the recent developments. Bloody SA Lands Department is too bloody cheap and lazy to fly new photography. Bastards.
What I’ve done so far has been pretty haphazard, I must admit. Five acres of the uphill end has been direct-seeded with a mixture of native plants by Trees for Life, which are doing brilliantly, and I’ve planted about a dozen olive trees along the creek line.
As for the rest of it, I’ve pretty much left it to its own devices. There are lots of Ruby Saltbush coming up all by themselves, and also some Fragrant Saltbush which I planted last winter (at least I think that’s what they are – they might be naturally seeded). There’s a heap of feral wheat, barley and peas (left from earlier cropping) coming up, as well as a lot of weeds and tussock grasses I haven’t identified yet. Also, my son and I broadcast about 20 kg of lucerne seed (ML99, I think) last year, and it looks like that’s coming up in clumps all over the paddock. I reckon there’s at least 20 different plant species growing up there (ignoring the direct-drilled natives, which are also pretty diverse). I slash it in late spring, to reduce fire risk and make sure the seed bank and organic content of the soil get built up.
Last time I was up there, I saw several large lizards (frill-necked and sleepy), some smaller skinks, a heap of wild quail, and some ladybirds. I’ve also seen brown snakes in the warmer weather.
It’s the retirement plan.
Geoengineering of global climate is only possible at the global level. So it would require the oversight of a global body with the power to mandate where and how much greenhouse-gas related activity takes place- at all levels and at all times.
This does not necessarily mean an old-style command economy, but does mean a global economy that would be utterly different from the current one.
So global climate engineering would require the dismantling of the world economy, and its replacement with something else that would have some highly centralised aspects.
That will make any previous international agreement (on anything) look like child’s play…
Depends.
Removal of CO2 from the atmosphere doesn’t represent any particular challenge for global governance.
Sunshades would, of course.
But if it ever gets to that stage, it’ll be act globally or we’re completely buggered.
Meanwhile, the Opposition Organ publishes a piece by Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked, which seems to have been written without the benefit of first having read the Royal Society report.
“Geoengineering of global climate is only possible at the global level. So it would require the oversight of a global body with the power to mandate where and how much greenhouse-gas related activity takes place- at all levels and at all times.”
Filling the mesosphere with sulphate particles is absurdly cheap, easy and effective at reducing temperature. You could bring about an ice age at the cost of only a few billion per year. The problem you’re getting at is that without an international system in place, China or India might decide in 2020 that they can’t accept a world with runaway climate change and there’ll be no mechanism to stop them.
d
Filling the mesosphere with sulphate particles, so that we can go on polluting a bit longer…
Does this remind anyone of lap-banding stomachs of people who can’t find the discipline to eat properly?
From the abstract of a new paper on the effects of stratospheric aerosol injection:
“Injecting sulfate aerosol precursors into the stratosphere has been suggested as a means of geoengineering to cool the planet and reduce global warming. The decision to implement such a scheme would require a comparison of its benefits, dangers, and costs to those of other responses to global warming, including doing nothing. Here we evaluate those factors for stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate aerosols. Using existing U.S. military fighter and tanker planes, the annual costs of injecting aerosol precursors into the lower stratosphere would be several billion dollars. Using artillery or balloons to loft the gas would be much more expensive. We do not have enough information to evaluate more exotic techniques, such as pumping the gas up through a hose attached to a tower or balloon system. Anthropogenic stratospheric aerosol injection would cool the planet, stop the melting of sea ice and land-based glaciers, slow sea level rise, and increase the terrestrial carbon sink, but produce regional drought, ozone depletion, less sunlight for solar power, and make skies less blue. Furthermore it would hamper Earth-based optical astronomy, do nothing to stop ocean acidification, and present many ethical and moral issues. Further work is needed to quantify many of these factors to allow informed decision-making.”
Elise @7: The problem with using trees as the carbon sink is that trees are likely to die, burn and/or rot as a result of climate change and thus put the tress back into the atmosphere. We have to look harder @ charcoal sequestration, CO2 sequestration from biofuel fired power stations etc. for a more reliable fix.