Opposition to California Geoengineering Conference Is Growing

The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies will be held from March 22-26 2010. This conference is being organized by the US-based Climate Response Fund and its Scientific Organizing Committee. While some scientists may think this conference is a good idea there are people who do not and an open letter opposing the conference has been posted by the ETC Group for opponents of the conference to sign. The first paragraph of the letter states “As civil society organizations and social movements working to find constructive solutions to climate change, we want to express our deep concerns with the upcoming privately organized meeting on geoengineering in Asilomar, California. Its stated aim, which is to «develop a set of voluntary guidelines, or best practices, for the least harmful and lowest risk conduct of research and testing of proposed climate intervention and geoengineering technologies,» is moving us down the wrong road too soon and without any speed limit.” The open letter ends by saying “It is vital that the international debate about geoengineering not be left in the hands of those with a self-interest in its facilitation, pursuit, and profit. It concerns us all and must be brought out into the open where all can participate. That will not happen in Asilomar.”

One of the problems with geoengineering seems to be that no one is sure how to go about it. It looks like there will be many battles ahead as efforts to move geoengineering forward take place.

Will CO2 Catchers Start Catching On?

With hopes of avoiding catastrophic climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions rapidly fading it is getting time to look at what to do as a last resort. If there is any feasible last resort it may be employing millions of CO2 catchers to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and then probably store it underground. One major obstacle is that successful working models of these devices do not yet exist. The big problem is that while capturing CO2 is not difficult it tends to take a lot of energy to release it once it has been captured, which basically makes such a device impractical. However, there are reports that this major hurdle may be close to being solved. A Columbia University research team led by Klaus Lackner has been working with a synthetic resin which according to Lackner in an article posted on Spiegel Online International “attracts CO2 strongly when dry, but releases it again easily when wet.” and “the process produces only about a fifth as much CO2 as the device collects.” He estimates that to offset between 10 and 15 percent of annual emissions would require 10 million CO2 catchers. A blog on Grist reports that researchers in the Netherlands have developed a copper-based catalyst that can capture CO2 and then release it in a different form using relatively little energy. News of this discovery was reported in the January 15th issue of the journal Science. So if a landscape filled with wind turbines and solar panels isn’t enough to save us from global warming perhaps adding millions of CO2 catchers will do the trick.

UK Royal Society Gives Geoengineering the Okay for Future Research

Geoengineering schemes to combat global warming got a boost from a study by the UK Royal Society which came to the conclusion that it is technically possible for geoengineering to play a role and research on the schemes should go forward. A report from BBC News says that the Society found that of the two basic approaches, carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere and reflecting sunlight, that the former was preferred. It may turn out that whether of not geoengineering schemes to alter the climate are technically possible may be beside the point as the study noted that “The greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geoengineering may be to social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance rather than scientific issues.” Yes, this could be one heck of a mess. Perhaps the best advice from this study is the recommendation for an international body to come up with some sort of procedure whereby treaties could be devised for determining who would have responsibility for carrying out the research that might have risks and benefits on a global scale. The situation we are in was nicely summarized by the chairman of the study group, Professor John Shepherd from the University of South Hampton, who said "Geoengineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change.” If things go unexpectedly wrong that could be quite a high price.

US Secretary of Energy Advocates Geoengineering Scheme

Last month President Obama’s chief scientific advisor John Holdren stirred things up by saying geoengineering schemes should not be taken "off the table" as a means of fighting global warming. Now Obama’s Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has advocated one such scheme in a speech in London. His statement is unlikely to kick up much political dust however because this was not some scheme that could be attacked as scientific madness but simply painting roofs white and making roads the color of concrete. White roofs and light-colored roads reflect sunlight back into space and thereby prevent heating. According to The Independent Chu said that “…if you look at all the buildings and make all the roofs white, and if you make the pavement a more concrete-type of color than a black-type of color, and you do this uniformly... It's the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years.... It's actually geoengineering." Wonder whether we will hear that word soon from Congress.

Obama’s Science Advisor Gets the G Word (Geoengineering) Back in the Headlines

Speaking about his own personal views, President Obama’s chief scientific advisor John Holdren told the Associated Press that geoengineering could not be excluded as a possible option when it comes to addressing the problem of climate change. As reported in The Guardian, Holdren said "It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table." With regard to one geoengineering scheme, cloud seeding, which could help cool the earth but also have the undesirable side effect of making the oceans more acidic, Holdren said that “We might get desperate enough to use it.” His attitude seems to be reasonable considering the alternative which is simply to try nothing if we cannot stop the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere and resulting warming. However, how will we know when to try cloud seeding or some other geoengineering scheme? With a lag time of several decades between emissions and their full impact scientists may believe that the point has come long before the general public. Even today that may explain why the climate scientists are having such a difficult time translating their sense of urgency to the public.

Controversial Iron-Seeding Experiment Produces a lot of Algae but Little CO2 Storage

After dumping six tons of iron filings into the Southern Ocean from the German research ship the Polarstern the scientists who conducted this geoengineering experiment have said that although they did manage to stimulate the growth of algae little of the carbon dioxide taken up by these microscopic organisms wound up on the floor of the ocean. Instead, most of the algae entered into the food chain as they were consumed by tiny organisms which in turn were consumed by somewhat larger organisms. One of the scientists, Professor Victor Smetacek, told BBC News that “What it means is the Southern Ocean cannot sequester the amount of carbon dioxide that one had hoped.” This experiment, which was considered as large scale, at least by protesters, covered 300 sq km of ocean. But it seems to be in fact rather small compared to what a company called Climos is planning. BBC News reports that this company plans to carry out an iron fertilization experiment that could cover up to 40,000 sq km of ocean. Considering all the protests surrounding this experiment using the Polarstern it seems almost certain that the protests will be even much larger if it appears that the Climos experiment will be carried out.

Royal Society Is Preparing a Geoengineering Feasibility Report

Another sign that desperation is setting in among scientists when it comes to combating global warming is that Britain’s Royal Society is putting together a report on the feasibility of using geoengineering. In an article posted on Times Online the gravity of the situation as viewed by the scientists is perhaps summed up by one of the contributors to the report, Professor Brian Launder, who says that unless carbon dioxide emissions are reduced or geoengineering can be used successfully “civilization as we know it will end within our grandchildren’s lifetime.” It would seem that simply by this academy of scientists issuing a report on geoengineering that this controversial approach to tackling global warming will gain more credibility. An argument against pursuing possible geoengineering solutions is that it will take attention away from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the argument that you need a Plan B if you are approaching the end of what we call civilization or anything even close to that and Plan A fails seems the more convincing.

Controversial Ocean Fertilization Experiment Has Begun

According to BBC News, scientists aboard the German research ship the Polarstern have begun dumping iron particles into an area of the Scotia Sea east of Argentina in an ocean fertilization experiment. The expedition had been suspended by the German government because of concerns that it violated the UN’s Convention On Biological Diversity. But with the expedition reauthorized by the German government the experiment is being carried out. The BBC article says that 6 tons of iron sulfate are being dumped into the ocean, although it has been reported that the ship set out with 20 tons.

This ocean fertilization experiment is taking place at a time when a new published research report described in an article posted at Yahoo News provides both good and bad news for the idea of dumping iron into the ocean to stimulate phytoplankton blooms as a way of countering global warming. The good news is that the research team, which was led by Raymond Pollard of the National Oceanography Centre of Southhampton in England, found that plankton were much more abundant in ocean water high in iron content than in ocean water that was iron-poor, suggesting that adding iron will produce plankton blooms. The bad news was that the research team found that only about 10% of the phytoplankton actually wind up on the bottom of the ocean. The remaining 90% don’t sink all way down and eventually, perhaps after decades or even longer, the carbon dioxide that the plankton had taken up from the atmosphere through photosynthesis gets back up to the surface. The smaller the percentage of carbon dioxide that gets permanently stored at the ocean bottom using this scheme the larger area of ocean that would be needed to have a significant affect on global warming, thereby maximizing costs and perhaps most importantly, risks.

Study Finds Some Geoengineering Schemes Would Be Effective

It seems likely that the debate over geoengineering schemes to combat global warming will get kicked up a notch with the publication of a study that assessed the effectiveness of many such proposals. An article posted on ScienceDaily says that the study’s conclusion, which will probably rile many environmentalists, was that some of the schemes can be useful for helping us avoid climate change catastrophe. While a professor of environmental science at the British University of East Anglia where the study was conducted, Tim Lenton, is quoted as saying “We found that some geoengineering options could usefully complement mitigation [reduction in greenhouse gas emissions], and together they could cool the climate, but geoengineering alone cannot solve the climate problem,” this might not be enough to assuage those who see flying mirrors or particles of sulfur purposely dispersed in the atmosphere as future nightmares. Although geoengineering schemes only recently were largely thought of as being wacky it seems likely that if attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions continue to lead mostly to frustration the seriousness with which geoengineering is regarded will grow. Unless something like a miracle occurs in Denmark at the end of this year when countries from all over the world sit down to decide how to tackle the global warming problem geoengineering’s stock will probably continue to rise in more quarters and the debate over geoengineering will likely grow more fierce.

Ocean Fertilization Experiment off Antartica Is Halted

An article in the Telegraph reports that a planned experiment to dump 20 tons of iron sulfate into the Southern Ocean to create a 186-square-mile plankton bloom to soak up the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has been stopped by the German government because of concerns that the experiment violates the UN’s Convention on Biodiversity. This should bring relief to environmentalists who have been worried that this large experiment could have resulted in an ecological disaster. The Polarstern, the German research ship carrying the iron, left South Africa with scientists on board from Germany, India, and the UK about two weeks ago. About one week later the experiment was placed on hold by the German government so that a group of international scientists could review it. It appears now that this global warming geoengineering experiment has been terminated before the review was completed.

Iron-Dumping Ocean Fertilization Experiment Placed on Hold

Although the German ice breaker Polarstern continues to steam toward the Southern Ocean to carry out an ocean fertilization experiment by dumping 20 tons of ferrous sulfate into the waters of the Scotia Sea near the Antarctic Penninsula, whether the experiment is actually performed is now in doubt. According to a report in the Mercury, the pleas of several international environmental NGOs to stop the experiment has resulted in the German government organizing an independent review of the experiment by international scientists. The results of this review will determine whether or not the iron gets dumped. The purpose of dumping the iron is to produce plankton blooms which will pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to combat the carbon dioxide emissions problem which is a main driver of global warming. One of the NGOs which is opposed to the experiment is the ETC Group. Jim Thomas of this organization says that carrying out this experiment “will be a clear defiance of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.” This agreement, which placed a global moratorium on ocean fertilization activities because of ecological risks, was signed in May 2008 by 191 countries. Whether this experiment is actually stopped should be known soon. The head of public relations for the German research institute that owns the Polarstern told the Mercury that they hoped that an answer would come from the scientific review within one week.

Scheme to Cool the Earth with Sunlight Reflecting Crops

Forget about increasing the reflection of sunlight to slow global warming by launching mirrors into space or dispersing sulfur particles into the atmosphere, all that is required is to replace standard crops such as wheat and barley with varieties that are more light reflective. At least that is what Andy Ridgewell from the University of Bristol claims. The Guardian reports that Ridgewell and a team of researchers used climate modeling to determine the effects of planting different crop varieties on global temperature. The scientists found that simply by planting the most reflective variety a cooling of 0.1C would be obtained. Projections of greater cooling in the future would be based on developing even more reflective varieties. Ridgewell points out that there would not have to be any change in the type of crops or amounts of crops, the only change would be that crops would reflect more light. It seems hard to believe that the solution to the global warming problem could be as simple as planting different varieties of wheat, barley, and corn. Perhaps it is too simple but at least if this scheme fails people will be well fed.

Iron-Dumping Ship Leaves Harbor for Ocean Geoengineering Experiment

Carrying 20 tons of ferrous sulfate, a ship has left South Africa to dump the iron into the Southern Ocean with the hope it will spur a plankton bloom in order to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. According to a New Scientist article, this is not a commercial venture but a scientific expedition and it has the scientific backing of the German, Indian, and UK governments. With regard to concerns that this experiment could have undesirable consequences, Ken Caldeira from Stanford University says in the article that such a small amount of iron “is unlikely to have a lasting effect” but “The rational concern is that experiments will lead down some slippery slope - that small experiments could be scaled up without any regulation.” It may be prudent not to begin such experiments but it seems they are going ahead. We could screw up the ocean more than we already have. Perhaps we should heed the words of Dr. Glen Barry who writes in his Climate Change Blog that “Geoengineering is indicative of both humanity's ignorance and laziness when confronted with tremendous challenges of their own making such as climate change.” It appears unlikely that such sentiments will prevail.

Another Geoengineering Scheme—Floating Pipes

Every few months it seems a new geoengineering scheme to save us from global warming hits the news. The lastest one is from a very improbable source, British scientist James Lovelock who gained fame for his Gaia theory of a self-regulating Earth. Lovelock teamed up with another British scientist, Chris Rapley, to write an article in the journal Nature to propose a geoengineering scheme to enhance the take up of carbon dioxide by tropical waters. The scheme involves placing huge numbers of floating vertical pipes in the water in order to draw cold water up to the surface by downward movement from ocean swells. Since cold water is richer in life than warm water more carbon dioxide would be taken up, at least in theory. An article on the BBC News website points out that Lovelock and Rapley were not aware that an American company named Atmocean has already begun testing such a scheme. Long pipes placed in water allow cold water in at the bottom and have a valve to block the downward flow of cold water during upward motion.

Why is Lovelock jumping on the geoengineering bandwagon? He told BBC News that “We are taking the very strong line that we are not going to save the planet by the regular approaches like the Kyoto Protocol or renewable energy. What we have to do is to look at it in a systems sense, or a Gaian sense, and see if it’s curable by direct action.”

It is hard to argue with Lovelock’s pessimism about our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fast enough. If this were a baseball game the home team would be down by 10 runs in the bottom of the ninth with 2 out. However, it is also very difficult to embrace any geoengineering scheme. Whether it is mirrors in space, microscopic sulphate particles placed in the atmosphere, stimulation of plankton growth, or whatever, one has to wonder whether these people really know what will be the results of what they are doing. One thing at least is clear. We should have acted on this problem 20 years ago. It really may be too late.

Geoengineering the Climate from the Perspective of James Lovelock

In an interview posted on FirstScience.com the well-known British scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock, who proposed the Gaia hypothesis, had some things to say about geoengineering proposals to combat global warming which sounded rather positive. His extremely pessimistic view of the global warming situation and his advocacy of nuclear power as part of the answer have gotten a lot of press recently whereas his views on geoengineering seem to be relatively unknown. In the interview he comments on two specific schemes. One involves placing sunshades in space at the point between the Earth and the Sun that is gravity neutral. Lovelock says that “It would take a lot of time and a lot of politics to get it working, but it might happen.” The other scheme involves dispersing tiny particles of sulphuric acid into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight as way of mimicking the effects of an erupting volcano. According to Lovelock “if commercial airlines could burn sulphur-rich fuel (unrefined kerosene) as they fly, instead of the highly-refined stuff, it would put enough sulphur in the atmosphere to give you a Pinatubo every couple of years.”

These type of schemes are generally considered to be something to be used as a last resort if greenhouse gas emissions cannot be reduced to limit global warming. With greenhouse gas emissions now increasing worldwide at about 3% per year and no plan in sight to alter this trend the likelihood that a method of last resort will actually be used to try to stop global warming seems to be growing more likely every day.