Studeo
2nd August 2010, 19:19
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727696.100-an-evil-atmosphere-is-forming-around-geoengineering.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
21 July 2010 by Clive Hamilton
IN 1892 Edvard Munch witnessed a blood-red sunset over Oslo, Norway.
Shaken by it, he wrote in his diary that he felt "a great, unending
scream piercing through nature". The incident inspired him to create
his most famous painting, The Scream.
The striking sunset was probably caused by the eruption of Krakatoa,
which sent a massive plume of ash and gas into the upper atmosphere,
turning sunsets red around the globe and cooling the Earth by more
than a degree.
Now a powerful group of scientists, venture capitalists and
conservative think tanks is coalescing around the idea of reproducing
this cooling effect by injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere
to counter climate change. Despite the enormity of what is being
proposed - nothing less than seizing control of the climate - the
public has been almost entirely excluded from the planning.
Up to now, governments have been reluctant to talk about
geoengineering. The reason is simple: apart from its unknown side
effects, it would weaken resolve to reduce emissions.
But it may soon prove an irresistible fix. This form of geoengineering
is extremely attractive because its costs are estimated to be trivial
compared to those of cutting carbon. It also gets powerful lobbies off
governments' backs, gives the green light to burning more coal, avoids
the need to raise petrol taxes, permits yet more unrestrained growth
and is no threat to consumer lifestyles.
No government is yet willing to lend support to geoengineering, but
the day when a major nation backs it cannot be far off. It is even
possible that a single nation suffering the effects of climate
disruption may decide to act alone.
Indeed, Russia has already begun testing. Yuri Izrael, a scientist who
is both a global-warming sceptic and a senior adviser to Prime
Minister Putin, has tested the effects of aerosol spraying from a
helicopter. He now plans a large-scale trial.
Izrael is the latest in a long line of scientists who have advocated
planetary engineering. Two of the earliest and most aggressive were
Edward Teller and Lowell Wood. Teller, who died in 2003, is often
described as the "father of the hydrogen bomb" and was the inspiration
for Dr Strangelove, the eponymous mad scientist of Stanley Kubrick's
1964 film. Wood was one of the Pentagon's foremost weaponeers, which
led his critics to dub him "Dr Evil". He led Ronald Reagan's ill-fated
Star Wars project.
Wood and Teller began promoting aerosol spraying in 1998. Reflecting
the dominant opinion of the 1950s, they saw it as our duty to exert
supremacy over nature. Both have long been associated with
conservative think tanks that deny the existence of human-induced
global warming.
A number of right-wing think tanks actively denying climate change are
also promoting geoengineering, an irony that seems to escape them.
Of course, geoengineering protects their funders in the fossil fuel
industries because it can be a substitute for carbon reductions and
justify delay, but a deeper explanation lies in beliefs about the
relationship of humans to the natural world.
While emissions reductions are an admission that industrial society
has harmed nature, engineering the climate would be confirmation of
our mastery over it, final proof that human ingenuity will always
triumph.
Wood believes that climate engineering is inevitable. In a statement
that could serve as Earth's epitaph, he declared: "We've engineered
every other environment we live in, why not the planet?"
Advocates of geoengineering also court the super-rich. Wood is
doubtful that governments can reach a consensus, but he sees no need
for that, instead speculating about going ahead with support from a
billionaire. "As far as I can determine, there is no law that
prohibits doing something like this". He is right.
Perhaps the billionaire he has in mind is Bill Gates, who has been
funding geoengineering research for three years. Gates is also an
investor in a firm named Intellectual Ventures that is promoting a
scheme called StratoShield, which would pump sulphur dioxide into the
upper atmosphere through a hose held aloft by blimps.
Richard Branson has also set up his own "war room" to do battle with
global warming using "market-driven solutions", including
geoengineering.
The Carbon War Room website promotes a paper co-authored by Lee Lane
of the American Enterprise Institute, well known for its climate
scepticism. It argues that the benefits of geoengineering vastly
outweigh the costs. The authors worry that ethical objections from
environmental groups may block deployment, before noting with relief
that "in reality, important economies remain largely beyond the
influence of environmental advocacy groups".
Geoengineering is not something we should enter into lightly or
without proper public consultation. If we resort to it, then the
concentration of carbon dioxide will continue to rise. It would then
become impossible to call a halt to sulphur injections, even for a
year or two, without an immediate jump in temperature.
It's estimated that if whoever controls the scheme decided to stop,
the greenhouse gases that would have built up could cause warming to
rebound at a rate 10 to 20 times that of the recent past - a
phenomenon referred to, apparently without irony, as the "termination
problem". Once we start engineering the atmosphere we could be
trapped, forever dependent on sulphur injections. More than a
painting, The Scream would become a prophecy.
If we start manipulating the atmosphere, we could become forever
dependent on sulphur injections
21 July 2010 by Clive Hamilton
IN 1892 Edvard Munch witnessed a blood-red sunset over Oslo, Norway.
Shaken by it, he wrote in his diary that he felt "a great, unending
scream piercing through nature". The incident inspired him to create
his most famous painting, The Scream.
The striking sunset was probably caused by the eruption of Krakatoa,
which sent a massive plume of ash and gas into the upper atmosphere,
turning sunsets red around the globe and cooling the Earth by more
than a degree.
Now a powerful group of scientists, venture capitalists and
conservative think tanks is coalescing around the idea of reproducing
this cooling effect by injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere
to counter climate change. Despite the enormity of what is being
proposed - nothing less than seizing control of the climate - the
public has been almost entirely excluded from the planning.
Up to now, governments have been reluctant to talk about
geoengineering. The reason is simple: apart from its unknown side
effects, it would weaken resolve to reduce emissions.
But it may soon prove an irresistible fix. This form of geoengineering
is extremely attractive because its costs are estimated to be trivial
compared to those of cutting carbon. It also gets powerful lobbies off
governments' backs, gives the green light to burning more coal, avoids
the need to raise petrol taxes, permits yet more unrestrained growth
and is no threat to consumer lifestyles.
No government is yet willing to lend support to geoengineering, but
the day when a major nation backs it cannot be far off. It is even
possible that a single nation suffering the effects of climate
disruption may decide to act alone.
Indeed, Russia has already begun testing. Yuri Izrael, a scientist who
is both a global-warming sceptic and a senior adviser to Prime
Minister Putin, has tested the effects of aerosol spraying from a
helicopter. He now plans a large-scale trial.
Izrael is the latest in a long line of scientists who have advocated
planetary engineering. Two of the earliest and most aggressive were
Edward Teller and Lowell Wood. Teller, who died in 2003, is often
described as the "father of the hydrogen bomb" and was the inspiration
for Dr Strangelove, the eponymous mad scientist of Stanley Kubrick's
1964 film. Wood was one of the Pentagon's foremost weaponeers, which
led his critics to dub him "Dr Evil". He led Ronald Reagan's ill-fated
Star Wars project.
Wood and Teller began promoting aerosol spraying in 1998. Reflecting
the dominant opinion of the 1950s, they saw it as our duty to exert
supremacy over nature. Both have long been associated with
conservative think tanks that deny the existence of human-induced
global warming.
A number of right-wing think tanks actively denying climate change are
also promoting geoengineering, an irony that seems to escape them.
Of course, geoengineering protects their funders in the fossil fuel
industries because it can be a substitute for carbon reductions and
justify delay, but a deeper explanation lies in beliefs about the
relationship of humans to the natural world.
While emissions reductions are an admission that industrial society
has harmed nature, engineering the climate would be confirmation of
our mastery over it, final proof that human ingenuity will always
triumph.
Wood believes that climate engineering is inevitable. In a statement
that could serve as Earth's epitaph, he declared: "We've engineered
every other environment we live in, why not the planet?"
Advocates of geoengineering also court the super-rich. Wood is
doubtful that governments can reach a consensus, but he sees no need
for that, instead speculating about going ahead with support from a
billionaire. "As far as I can determine, there is no law that
prohibits doing something like this". He is right.
Perhaps the billionaire he has in mind is Bill Gates, who has been
funding geoengineering research for three years. Gates is also an
investor in a firm named Intellectual Ventures that is promoting a
scheme called StratoShield, which would pump sulphur dioxide into the
upper atmosphere through a hose held aloft by blimps.
Richard Branson has also set up his own "war room" to do battle with
global warming using "market-driven solutions", including
geoengineering.
The Carbon War Room website promotes a paper co-authored by Lee Lane
of the American Enterprise Institute, well known for its climate
scepticism. It argues that the benefits of geoengineering vastly
outweigh the costs. The authors worry that ethical objections from
environmental groups may block deployment, before noting with relief
that "in reality, important economies remain largely beyond the
influence of environmental advocacy groups".
Geoengineering is not something we should enter into lightly or
without proper public consultation. If we resort to it, then the
concentration of carbon dioxide will continue to rise. It would then
become impossible to call a halt to sulphur injections, even for a
year or two, without an immediate jump in temperature.
It's estimated that if whoever controls the scheme decided to stop,
the greenhouse gases that would have built up could cause warming to
rebound at a rate 10 to 20 times that of the recent past - a
phenomenon referred to, apparently without irony, as the "termination
problem". Once we start engineering the atmosphere we could be
trapped, forever dependent on sulphur injections. More than a
painting, The Scream would become a prophecy.
If we start manipulating the atmosphere, we could become forever
dependent on sulphur injections