Some Scientists Eye Odd Climate Fixes
Pastor Dale Morgan
Mar 18, 8:02 PM EDT
*
Some Scientists Eye Odd Climate Fixes*
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- When climate scientist Andrew Weaver considers the
idea of tinkering with Earth's air, water or sunlight to fight global
warming, he remembers the lessons of a favorite children's book.
In the book, a cheese-loving king's castle is infested with mice. So the
king brings in cats to get rid of the mice. Then the castle's overrun
with cats, so he brings in dogs to get rid of them, then lions to get
rid of the dogs, elephants to get rid of the lions, and finally, mice to
get rid of the elephants.
That scenario in "The King, the Mice and the Cheese," by Nancy and Eric
Gurney, should give scientists pause before taking extreme measures to
mess with Mother Nature, says Weaver of the University of Victoria.
However, in recent months, several scientists are considering doing just
that.
They are exploring global warming solutions that sound wholly
far-fetched, including giant artificial "trees" that would filter carbon
dioxide out of the air, a bizarre "solar shade" created by a trillion
flying saucers that lower Earth's temperature, and a scheme that mimics
a volcano by spewing light-reflecting sulfates high in the sky.
These are costly projects of last resort - in case Earth's citizens
don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of
the climate predictions appear not too far away. Unfortunately, the
solutions could cause problems of their own - beyond their exorbitant
costs - including making the arid Middle East even drier and polluting
the air enough to increase respiratory illnesses.
Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, said mankind already has harmed Earth's climate
inadvertently, so it's foolish to think that people can now fix it with
a few drastic measures.
But at Trenberth's same Boulder, Colo., research center, climate
scientist Tom Wigley is exploring that mock volcano idea.
"It's the lesser of two evils here (the other being doing nothing),"
Wigley said. "Whatever we do, there are bad consequences, but you have
to judge the relative badness of all the consequences."
Studying the concept of how volcanic pollutants could lessen global
warming - the Earth was slightly cooler after the eruption of a
Philippine volcano 16 years ago - was brought to the forefront of
scientific debate last summer by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen.
"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Crutzen, of Germany's
Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more
strongly than they have in the past, then in the end, we have to do
experiments like this."
In the past, scientists and others have avoided talking publicly about
these ideas, known as "geoengineering," even though the concept was
first raised in 1965. They worried that the hope of a quick
technological fix to global warming would prevent politicians and the
public from making the real energy sacrifices that they say are
necessary to slow climate change.
David Keith, a University of Calgary engineering professor and one of
the world's experts in geoengineering, says that just because tinkering
with the air, water and sunlight are possible, they should not be
substitutes for cutting emissions just because "we've been politically
weak-kneed."
Instead, he said, such options should be researched as an "insurance
policy" in case global warming is even worse than forecast. And that
prospect has caused climate scientists to talk about the issue more
openly in recent months.
There is also a chance that discussion of such radical ideas as a
volcano or sun shade could shock the world into acting to reduce fossil
fuel emissions, Keith said.
However, White House science adviser Jack Marburger, said spending money
on geoengineering doesn't make sense. The federal government, which
spends about $2 billion on climate change science, invests nearly all of
its research on energy sources that produce fewer or no greenhouse gas
emissions.
"I don't think it's scientifically feasible at this time to consider a
plan like that (geoengineering)," Marburger told The Associated Press.
"The real urgency is to reduce carbon dioxide."
In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looked at
geoengineering as part of its report on how to lessen global warming. It
found some promise, worried about unexpected side effects, legal and
ethical implications, and concluded that "unlike other strategies,
geoengineering addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of climate
change."
Even proponents of geoengineering research are wary.
"We are playing with fire here," Keith said. "Those of us suggesting we
do something are suggesting it with real nervousness."
---
Associated Press Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley in New York
contributed to this report.