Geoengineering and sense of emergency
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Alex Shenderov
Mar 21, 2008, 1:15:39 PM3/21/08
to geoengineering
The recent TIME article on geoengineering gave birth to some fiercely
angry statements. Unfortunately, emotions appear to get in the way of
facts. The facts are:
- sustaining American lifestyle requires enormous energy budget per
person;
- this lifestyle is actively and successfully promoted as the example
for the rest of the world;
- economic globalization gives the rest of the world a real
opportunity to achieve American lifestyle;
- any politician or civil servant, almost anywhere in the world, who
tries to revert this trend, will lose his/her job in a very short
order indeed; and
- any company, anywhere in the world, has to play along to be really
successful
What it means is, within the next 15-30 years, the world energy
consumption will go up to the same per-head values as the US currently
has, increasing the total by the factor of >5.5 from its present
value. And most of this energy will come from fossil fuels. The
carbon emissions will rise even more, as oil is replaced by coal
(which is cheaper and more abundant, but emits more carbon per unit
energy produced).
No one can reliably predict the consequences of this development. It
is clear that major shifts in climate, agriculture, and wildlife are
inevitable. No one knows the timing and details of these shifts, not
to mention their extent - and costs. It is clear that many of the
world's greatest oceanfront cities will become uninhabitable and will
have to be abandoned. Again, the timing and costs of such relocations
are unknown.
There is no real mechanism in existence to stop this trend, and time
is too short to create one. Political solutions don't work, as
abundantly demonstrated by the failure of Kyoto protocol to make a
dent in the global carbon emissions. Market forces, while having
plenty of muscle to reverse the trend, lack any incentives to do so on
the required massive scale. In both cases, long-term dangers are
consistently ignored under pressure (from constituents, shareholders
and consumers) to meet short-term goals. So what options do we have?
None that are ready to be implemented. Remember, we are talking about
countering unwanted consequences of essentially all human activity on
the planet - meaning that, whatever solution is found, implementing it
will be a massive effort. But we are not ready to implement anything
this grandiose anyways. Any solution will require massive sacrifices
on part of everyone, and to make these acceptable, something truly
terrible has to happen. And once the catastrophic consequences of
global warming make themselves obvious to everybody, the time to do
something will be very short indeed.
So the smart thing to do would be to be as prepared as possible,
technologically. For example, invest in large-scale geoengineering
experiments and climate modeling. Then, by the time desperate measures
are called for, we'll have some idea, - which ones are less desperate,
and more likely to work. Seeding our stratosphere with sulfur may be
unsafe; painting our roofs white may be inefficient; seeding our
oceans with iron may be irresponsible. But pretending that the feel-
good options like hybrid cars or bioethanol can stop global warming -
it is unsafe, inefficient, and irresponsible at the same time. Let's
research our options before it's too late.
Comments appreciated.
angry statements. Unfortunately, emotions appear to get in the way of
facts. The facts are:
- sustaining American lifestyle requires enormous energy budget per
person;
- this lifestyle is actively and successfully promoted as the example
for the rest of the world;
- economic globalization gives the rest of the world a real
opportunity to achieve American lifestyle;
- any politician or civil servant, almost anywhere in the world, who
tries to revert this trend, will lose his/her job in a very short
order indeed; and
- any company, anywhere in the world, has to play along to be really
successful
What it means is, within the next 15-30 years, the world energy
consumption will go up to the same per-head values as the US currently
has, increasing the total by the factor of >5.5 from its present
value. And most of this energy will come from fossil fuels. The
carbon emissions will rise even more, as oil is replaced by coal
(which is cheaper and more abundant, but emits more carbon per unit
energy produced).
No one can reliably predict the consequences of this development. It
is clear that major shifts in climate, agriculture, and wildlife are
inevitable. No one knows the timing and details of these shifts, not
to mention their extent - and costs. It is clear that many of the
world's greatest oceanfront cities will become uninhabitable and will
have to be abandoned. Again, the timing and costs of such relocations
are unknown.
There is no real mechanism in existence to stop this trend, and time
is too short to create one. Political solutions don't work, as
abundantly demonstrated by the failure of Kyoto protocol to make a
dent in the global carbon emissions. Market forces, while having
plenty of muscle to reverse the trend, lack any incentives to do so on
the required massive scale. In both cases, long-term dangers are
consistently ignored under pressure (from constituents, shareholders
and consumers) to meet short-term goals. So what options do we have?
None that are ready to be implemented. Remember, we are talking about
countering unwanted consequences of essentially all human activity on
the planet - meaning that, whatever solution is found, implementing it
will be a massive effort. But we are not ready to implement anything
this grandiose anyways. Any solution will require massive sacrifices
on part of everyone, and to make these acceptable, something truly
terrible has to happen. And once the catastrophic consequences of
global warming make themselves obvious to everybody, the time to do
something will be very short indeed.
So the smart thing to do would be to be as prepared as possible,
technologically. For example, invest in large-scale geoengineering
experiments and climate modeling. Then, by the time desperate measures
are called for, we'll have some idea, - which ones are less desperate,
and more likely to work. Seeding our stratosphere with sulfur may be
unsafe; painting our roofs white may be inefficient; seeding our
oceans with iron may be irresponsible. But pretending that the feel-
good options like hybrid cars or bioethanol can stop global warming -
it is unsafe, inefficient, and irresponsible at the same time. Let's
research our options before it's too late.
Comments appreciated.
Gera Stenchikov
Mar 21, 2008, 2:01:04 PM3/21/08
to Alex Shenderov, geoengineering
I absolutely agree. We have to research our options but it has to be put
on a quantitative basis. I mean we have to account for physical
consequences and for economy burden. Hand-waiving arguments about
efficacy of different approaches are not enough to assess their impact on
the world's economy and their political feasibility.
Professor Georgiy Stenchikov Email: ge...@envsci.rutgers.edu
Department of Environmental Sciences Ph.(home): (732)296-1008
Rutgers-The State University of NJ Ph. (off): (732)932-9800 x6215
14 College Farm Rd. Fax: (732)932-8644
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~gera/
Alex Shenderov
Mar 21, 2008, 3:17:40 PM3/21/08
to geoengineering
Sure (about the quantitative aspect). That's why I think modeling and
large-scale experimentation should go parallel, so we don't have GIGO
effect of 1,000 parameters in a model - and no training data set. As
my boss on MS project once put it, give me 4 free parameters, and I
can fit any given letter of Greek alphabet...
On Mar 21, 2:01 pm, Gera Stenchikov <g...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> I absolutely agree. We have to research our options but it has to be put
> on a quantitative basis. I mean we have to account for physical
> consequences and for economy burden. Hand-waiving arguments about
> efficacy of different approaches are not enough to assess their impact on
> the world's economy and their political feasibility.
>
> Professor Georgiy Stenchikov Email: g...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> > Comments appreciated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
large-scale experimentation should go parallel, so we don't have GIGO
effect of 1,000 parameters in a model - and no training data set. As
my boss on MS project once put it, give me 4 free parameters, and I
can fit any given letter of Greek alphabet...
On Mar 21, 2:01 pm, Gera Stenchikov <g...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> I absolutely agree. We have to research our options but it has to be put
> on a quantitative basis. I mean we have to account for physical
> consequences and for economy burden. Hand-waiving arguments about
> efficacy of different approaches are not enough to assess their impact on
> the world's economy and their political feasibility.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages