Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

XemaSab

(60,212 posts)
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:19 AM Jun 2012

Capturing our way out of the carbon mess

Ah, geoengineering. That crazy idea to manipulate earth's atmosphere to do the opposite of what our current manipulations are doing -- cool the planet instead of warm it -- has made its way back into the headlines recently, with pieces in the New Yorker and Scientific American.

Geoengineering would be a desperate measure indeed, stemming from complete national and global failure to sufficiently reduce carbon emissions. The fact that it's being discussed ever more seriously is acknowledgement that the world's climate is changing in ways guaranteed to be deeply disruptive. In the New Yorker article, Hugh Hunt, an engineering professor at Cambridge University, likens geoengineering to chemotherapy -- a poisonous, damaging treatment undertaken as a last resort, when death is the only other option. It's a powerful metaphor.

The author of that story, Michael Specter, classifies geoengineering into two areas. The first, solar radiation management, seeks to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching and heating the earth. It involves seemingly crazy but gravely discussed ideas like pumping particles into the atmosphere to mimic sun-blocking volcanic eruptions. (This idea was also discussed in the 2009 book Superfreakonomics) The second area of geoengineering is commonly referred to as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. Capturing carbon and storing it is less risky than more exotic high-tech forms of geoengineering, but Specter's piece moves past the CCS option quickly, saying it is expensive technology that will take a long time to have an effect.

True enough, but manipulating the amount of sunlight hitting the earth is also expensive, and perhaps even more unlikely than capturing carbon and storing it. The New Yorker piece may focus on these extreme manipulations as a means of underscoring the lack of sensible action on the climate front. But recent new in the energy world points to a need to give the other kind of geoengineering -- carbon capture and storage -- another look.

http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/capturing-our-way-out-of-the-carbon-mess

I'm deeply skeptical of the CCS game, but it's interesting that it's still being kicked around.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

cosmicaug

(712 posts)
1. Solar radiation management is crazy...
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:55 AM
Jun 2012

Solar radiation management is crazy. The only way to know if it works acceptably is to put it into effect.

It is strange that the same people who successively deny global warming because we just don't understand climate so we need to wait until more of the data is in (the next step is to then qualify that even if it's real, it's not man made*) are the same people will say that even if it's real and significant and man made, we can just use solar radiation management to fix things.

So, somehow, according to climate change denialists, we don't understand climate well enough to diagnose a problem but we understand climate well enough to be able to be confident that we can use solar radiation management approaches to fix it? Which is it? It simply makes no sense to me that we can be confident of being able to fix things without running into unintended consequences.

If we are going to do any geoengineering, the only sort which we can be sure that we are not doing harm is carbon sequestration (whether it is viable or not is another matter).

Solar radiation management is what we get to do in a situation of extreme desperation. It's absolutely the last resort.





* I never understood why people consider this greatly significant --not that I see it likely that the anthropogenic contribution isn't most or all. As long as physics works, increasing carbon dioxide levels can only make any warming worse so the solution would still be to moderate carbon dioxide levels.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
2. I'm seconding the "solar radiation management is crazy" stance
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 01:26 AM
Jun 2012

First, and most importantly, it's fucking crazy.

Secondly, it doesn't actually do anything to FIX THE PROBLEM. Which is what we need to be doing. Throwing up a fig leaf is not going to help anything, it just gives us an even worse condition to manage further down the line

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
3. Idea: Allow climate change to melt ice caps, then go in to new territories for extraction!!!!
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 04:59 AM
Jun 2012

Brilliant, right?

Clean coal? You betcha!!!


drokhole

(1,230 posts)
4. Here's a crazy idea - how about we cooperate with Nature instead of trying to conquer and control it
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 09:14 PM
Jun 2012

When it comes to sequestering carbon, I thought this idea was incredibly sensible:

To Kick Climate Change, Replace Corn With Pastured Beef
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112713328

Mind you, it's not the be-all and end-all. But it's a hell of a start. One of the problems with this whole debate is thinking that it's going to be fixed with one magic-bullet mega-engineering project. It needs to be approached and attacked on numerous fronts, some small scale and some large. Here's a great article on the matter:

What Are People Really Talking About When They Talk About "Geo-Engineering"?
by Dale Carrico

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Capturing our way out of ...