Geoengineering as a Solution to Global Warming

Pollution due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which contribute hugely to global warming remains untamed, as international response to calls like the Kyoto Protocol entreating industrialized countries like the US to limit their CO2 emissions remain "grossly disappointing", as Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen wrote in an article in 2006 in the journal Climatic Change. Experts estimate that global warming may increase surface temperatures by as much as 6.4 ºC (11.5 ºF) if CO2 levels continue to rise as it does now. This rise in temperature may give rise to any number of situations in the future, all of which will probably have a bad effect on humans and other life forms: greater incidence of Katrina-like storms and extreme weather, extinction of plant and animal species unable to tolerate the heat, rising sea levels that can drown coastal cities, and others.

So, to counter the disastrous effects of global warming, scientists like Crutzen propose very drastic solutions.

So what are some of these proposals? Pollute the upper atmosphere with sulfur dust to reflect sunlight. Put small lenses in orbit. Float large white "islands" on oceans. Bury CO2 to the depths of the ocean by lacing the waters with iron. All these mad sci-fi fixes are lumped under the heading of "geoengineering", a new science that promises to negate the effects of global warming really fast while struggling to find a serious audience in the scientific community.

While geoengineering received little attention until Crutzen's paper was published, the idea of deliberately manipulating the atmosphere to suit human needs has been around in the fringes since the beginning of the 20th century.

The warming effect of CO2 emissions on land temperature was explored in 1905; the undesirable effects of CO2 pollution were discussed in more detail in the 1960s, and attempts at weather modification were done much earlier by the former USSR beginning in 1932. Proposals to cool the atmosphere appeared beginning in 1964.

In recent decades, the ideas of geoengineering met with considerable and understandable resistance from the scientific community. Geoengineering was deemed too impractical, with results that were insignificant or capable of wrecking more damage to the environment or both. It was only through Crutzen's prominence as an expert in atmospheric chemistry and the persistence of its proponents that geoengineering finally grabbed the spotlight; NASA held a workshop on geoengineering in California on November 2006, and climate scientists convened in Harvard University for a geoengineering conference earlier that same month. And renewed perceptions toward geoengineering are favorable; now, experts generally agree that if the warming gets out of hand and other measures fail, geoengineering may be a good last resort.

So how effective is geoengineering in controlling global warming? Actual small-scale experiments on several proposed methods are yet to be done, but some show promise. Most promising of the proposals is the frequent introduction of tons and tons of sulfur particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space, proposed by Crutzen. Computer simulations of the effects of such an action show that stratospheric shading using sulfur could counteract further projected warming indefinitely.

Still scientists show no great eagerness to the idea. Scientists fear that the immediate effects of geo-engineering will lead world leaders to abandon long-range plans to clean the atmosphere of greenhouse gases. Still, scientists who had warmed up to the idea of tweaking the climate concede that geo-engineering must be considered seriously for possible future implementation, in the face of a possibly dire future climate, because at the pace with which current strategies to alleviate global warming are being done geo-engineering could very well be our planet's only hope.

Understanding The Global Warming Myths

The first global warming myth many people hold is that the science of global warming is too uncertain to act on. Nothing could be further from the truth, as scientists are in agreement over the basic facts of global warming, including the fact that global warming is occurring and that human activities, like burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests, intensify global warming's effects on our planet.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and 10 other National Academies of Science state that there is clear evidence that global warming is occurring and that nations should take prompt action in the form of cost-effective steps in order to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

Another commonly-held myth is that addressing global warming will hurt the American industry and American workers.

The fact is that a well-designed trading program would harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost- effectively and would also give rise to a new carbon economy.

Many companies that have already reduced their heat-trapping emissions have learned that they can save money by being more environmentally friendly.

The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions, and the means of implementing it. An independent MIT study has determined that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than per household and would not result in anyone losing his/her employment.

Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared to other regulatory approaches; one previous example was the U.S.

acid rain program that helped reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by more than 30% from 1990 levels and cost the industry a fraction of what the government estimated.

In addition, a mandatory cap on emissions can lead to technological innovation that can create jobs and wealth. Conversely, if we do nothing until the damage is more extensive, that delay will likely disrupt and severely damage our economy, so it would be wiser and more cost- effective to act now.

A third widely-held global warming myth is the thinking that because water vapour is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas, efforts should be taken to control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2.)

The fact is, however, that even though water vapour does trap more heat than CO2, global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2 because they can directly affect how much CO2 is in our atmosphere by cutting back and/or eliminating such activities like burning coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as cutting down trees.

The level of water vapour cannot be directly controlled by people because they are determined by temperatures - the warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapour it can hold. Therefore, the more CO2 present in the atmosphere, the warmer the air becomes, which leads to more water vapour in the air. As a result, the key to controlling and reducing water vapour is to control the levels of CO2 people put into the air.

A fourth widely-held belief is that global warming and extra CO2 will be beneficial as they'll reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.

The fact is that any positive benefits from extra CO2 in the atmosphere will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.

Even if only the middle range of scientific projections are reached in the future, the effects would have catastrophic effects on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt, and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge. Extreme weather events, like heat waves, droughts, and floods are expected to increase in frequency and severity, which would lead to more loss of life, agriculture, and property.

While higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer, most scientists think that this benefit has been overstated in recent years as plants seem to acclimate to the higher levels of CO2 after a few years, thereby nullifying the benefits. In addition, higher levels of CO2 can allow undesirable, weedy species to grow more rapidly, something that is not wanted.

As you can see, believing global warming myths can lead people to actions that will cause more harm to our economies and our planet in the future. That is why it is so important to learn the facts about global warming so that proper actions can be taken in the future to lessen or reverse the effects global warming will have on our economies, societies, and way of life.