Greens who object to geoengineering put planet at risk

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2021-02-11/chris-reed-greens-who-object-to-geoengineering-put-planet-at-risk

Chris Reed: Greens who object to geoengineering put planet at risk

A huge cloud of volcanic ash shoots up to the sky following another eruption of Mount Pinatubo  on June 15, 1991.

A huge cloud of volcanic ash shoots up to the sky following another eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the northwestern Philippines on June 15, 1991. The eruption led to lower temperatures around the world.(AP)

By CHRIS REED

FEB. 11, 2021 12:37 PM PT

Apocalyptic warnings about climate change — such as the U.S. Geological Survey-Cornell-University of Arizona report in 2014 that the American Southwest faced a significant risk of a 35-year “megadrought” — grow more plausible and terrifying each year as new global temperature records are set and massive wildfires come to seem normal.

Some scientists believe the planet may already be past the tipping point. “The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story of the Future,” a 2019 book by American journalist David Wallace-Wells, laid out the view that there is already so much carbon in the atmosphere that global disaster is inevitable. But Wallace-Wells also wrote that thanks to technological advances, “the solutions are obvious, and available” — referring to not just increasingly cheap green energy but to proposals to use “geoengineering.” For the uninitiated, geoengineering is the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system to slow or reverse climate change.

Unfortunately, a new controversy in Sweden shows once again the maddening nature of modern environmentalism. The same green groups that warn that climate change will worsen or ruin the lives of billions of people are opposed to using advanced technology to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, they insist the main solutions must be 1) a planetary abandonment of dirty fuels — even if that is effectively impossible because the world’s two most populous nations, China and India, embrace coal-burning power plants as essential to future economic growth — and 2) dramatic changes in how humans lead lives and consume natural resources.

ADVERTISEMENT

The dispute in Sweden involves the proposal by a team of Harvard scientists to launch a scientific balloon in June from Kiruna, Sweden’s northernmost town, to try to replicate the temperature-depressing effects seen from major volcanic eruptions. It is a matter of record that the mass emission of sulfur dioxide caused by the Philippines’ Mount Pinatubo blast in 1991 lowered thermostats around the world. Many scientists have long contended that this sort of geoengineering is both less risky and much cheaper than other proposals.

Yet The Guardian reported Monday that environmental groups including Greenpeace Sweden, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and Friends of the Earth Sweden have asked the Swedish government to block the tests to prevent the possible emergence of a “dangerous, unpredictable and unmanageable” technology.

Frank Keutsch, leader of the Harvard team, told the London newspaper, “The risk of not doing research on this outweighs the risk of doing this research. ... Climate change is a problem of profound size and potentially profound impact on humanity. I think we should be considering all kinds of options because it’s unlikely that there is going to be a silver bullet that will fix everything.”

ADVERTISEMENT

If you believe climate change is a profound threat to humanity, Keutsch’s argument should strike you as cogent and powerful. The atmospheric science professor offered to personally meet with concerned Swedish environmentalists to explain the importance of research on solar radiation management.

But it probably would be a waste of his time. Many green groups’ opposition to promising geoengineering technologies is not rooted in logic or science. It is rooted in a quasi-spiritual, righteous belief that humankind must pay a price for despoiling the world. As longtime journalist Joel Garreau wrote in 2010, “Environmentalism is progressively taking the social form of a religion and fulfilling some of the individual needs associated with religion, with major political and policy implications.”

Yet if environmentalism as a religion opposes attempts to save the planet because they don’t include enough suffering from humans, than it mutates into something different: a virtue-signaling death cult.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yes, of course humanity should continue with its push for cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy.

Yes, of course people should think globally and then act locally to reduce their carbon footprints.

And, yes, it would seem like the opposite of karma if the humans who had fouled the Earth so badly over the past 200 years used new technology to avoid paying much of a price for their wanton behavior.

ADVERTISEMENT

But wait a minute. As the debate has built in recent weeks over who should be vaccinated first for the pandemic, the argument that the goal should be to save the lives of as many people as possible has gained power — because it is obvious. So the most at-risk group, the elderly, now is the focus of vaccination campaigns.

When will it become obvious that the goal of efforts to address global warming should be to help as many people as possible? That an all-of-the-above response to this threat is necessary to limit coming human misery?

This is already obvious to some of us — those not in the thrall of gang green.

Reed is deputy editor of the editorial and opinion section. Column archive: sdut.us/chrisreed. Twitter: @calwhine. Email: chris...@sduniontribune.com 

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2021/02/14/opinion/greens-who-object-to-geoengineering-put-planet-at-risk/

Extract 

...a new controversy in Sweden shows once again the maddening nature of modern environmentalism. The same green groups that warn that climate change will worsen or ruin the lives of billions of people are opposed to using advanced technology to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, they insist the main solutions must be 1) a planetary abandonment of dirty fuels — even if that is effectively impossible because the world’s two most populous nations, China and India, embrace coal-burning power plants as essential to future economic growth — and 2) dramatic changes in how humans lead lives and consume natural resources 

[Claudia Wieners]

Well, I heartily disagree with the "maddening" environmentalists opposing SRM research, but I would nonetheless plead to be careful with formulations such as: "even if that is effectively impossible because the world’s two most populous nations, China and India, embrace coal-burning power plants as essential to future economic growth"

Should solar power (including storage) become cheaper than fuel-based, then this will eventually trigger a shift - albeit maybe too late to reach 2 degree, so some geoengineering may be much needed. But I think we all agree that a transition away from fossils, even if not in time for 2 degrees, would be most welcome (the fewer emissions, the less geoengineering we need); and the best way to achieve a transition away from fossils is by pushing it, even if starting with only a few countries. The (seemingly ridiculously expensive) roll-out of solar and wind in a few countries like Germany and Denmark greatly reduced the prices of these technologies through learning-by-doing; same could happen with storage once it is pushed for. Energy transition is more dynamic (and chaotic) than often acknowledged (*), so let's not give up on it verbally - but let's of course also keep investigating geoengineering as a complementary strategy. 

(*) e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.698 

Best

Claudia

Op ma 15 feb. 2021 om 13:51 schreef Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>:

https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2021/02/14/opinion/greens-who-object-to-geoengineering-put-planet-at-risk/

Extract 

...a new controversy in Sweden shows once again the maddening nature of modern environmentalism. The same green groups that warn that climate change will worsen or ruin the lives of billions of people are opposed to using advanced technology to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, they insist the main solutions must be 1) a planetary abandonment of dirty fuels — even if that is effectively impossible because the world’s two most populous nations, China and India, embrace coal-burning power plants as essential to future economic growth — and 2) dramatic changes in how humans lead lives and consume natural resources 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04Z-s3TMx3ps42QeEwWJdk1goWdd1pOHfOjzp16pGChEg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ernie Rogers]

Thanks, Claudia, for the wise words.  We need to keep all our options on the table.  I personally like wide-spread dispersal of ultramafics (alkaline minerals).  It is good to remember that 99.99% of the earth is very alkaline (from metal oxides).  The dangerously acidic part (from CO2) is only 0.01%--the outer skin of the earth a few kilometers thick.  If a little of that alkaline part can be dispersed in land and waters, it will remove the CO2.  We certainly need to find better ways to store energy.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5dmo7Cjut47MpyuS6NqPqomZFPVds8x8qp%3D0Z91COcYxQ%40mail.gmail.com.