« Should the driving rules favor cars or bikers? | Main | How can a stuffed shark be worth $12 million? »
Geo-engineering to cure global warming?
Robin Hanson summarizes one case for it. I don't know much about the technologies but my worries are mainly political. Won't the Russians benefit greatly from a warming world, both because they are a bit cold and because they will access a warmer Arctic? Would the UN Security Council approve climate engineering? Probably not. If the United States did it on its own, could that be perceived as an act of war? If geo-engineering is cheap (which is part of its very promise), and unilateral action is acceptable, don't other countries also get to take their shot at influencing the environment and moving us toward an optimal climate? What does the resulting equilibrium look like? Who moves last? How would we feel if someone changed the U.S. climate to make many parts of the country colder?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 10, 2008 at 08:16 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
But there is this, too:
"Much of the climate community still views the idea with deep suspicion or outright hostility. Geoengineering, many say, is a way to feed society's addiction to fossil fuels. "It's like a junkie figuring out new ways of stealing from his children"
In other words, 'much of the climate community' would not welcome engineering-based cures to global warming on the grounds that they might allow us to continue our sinful addictions and dissolute lifestyles. For these folks, the idea that action on global warming will require us to change our ways of living is not a bug, it's a feature.
As for the politics of geo-engineering -- are they really any more difficult than the politics of establishing and enforcing global carbon limits?
Posted by: Slocum at Jul 10, 2008 8:13:44 AM
Yeah, my reaction was the same as Slocum's. Tyler, is there anything specific to geo-engineering that would not also apply to CO2 emissions? I.e. I could spin it around and say, "There will be another world war to force China to cut CO2 emissions. Oh wait, they mass produced solar panels that block a sizable portion of incoming sunlight in 2032, so now we don't have to nuke the Chinese."
Also, I don't remember whether it was in Science or Nature, but a few months ago they had a report of a conference where more and more scientists were reluctantly concluding that governments were too boneheaded to act, and that therefore it was up to the scientists to devise a sensible geo-engineering solution. (I haven't clicked on the link yet, so my apologies if this is covered there. But the earlier you post your comment on MR, the more people who see it!)
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Jul 10, 2008 8:51:39 AM
I think Geo-engineering in pursuit of climate stability is ok to pursue unilaterally and would generally be embraced by the world community, countries have infrastructure for the existing climate and in general would be happy not to incur the short term costs of altering that infrastructure (though Russia might prefer it wasn't the case). I think altering the climate in novel ways would be viewed negatively.
I think it is sort of amusing that global warming skeptics think that we don't have the tools to tell if climate change is happening but do, or will soon, have the tools alter the climate in predictable ways.
Posted by: Michael Foody at Jul 10, 2008 9:05:06 AM
Slocum,
I don't think you can dismiss the moral hazard problem quite as easily. Geoengineering sounds cute in theory but in practice it way well be just a bandaid solution that will create more problems than it it will solve.
Posted by: MS at Jul 10, 2008 9:11:04 AM
MS,
Restricting greenhouse gases is also a bandaid solution that will create more problems than it will solve. Regulations, taxes, and outright bans have secondary ("unintended") consequences regardless of whether they are applied to greenhouse emissions, cigarettes, or international trade.
The failure of the Kyoto Protocol (both in the lack of universal adoption and the likely failure of its signatories) is also a fine example of moral hazard. It and other international discussions/agreements concerning global warming have a cuteness factor on the same level as the Kellog-Briand Pact (1928: War outlawed. Still US law!).
I support the group arguing that geoengineering has the same issues regarding practical implementation as emissions cuts: uncertain results, uncertain costs, certain problems of collective action, etc. Geo-engineering sounds as if it is probably cheaper, but even this could change once a government procurement process gets hold of it.
Posted by: Garrett Schmitt at Jul 10, 2008 10:15:51 AM
At this point geo-engineering is best left to the engineering experts, but because engineers tend to be blinkered it's hard to evaluate the overall cost to the system since externalities are ignored. For example, few if any of these overexcited geo-engineering to solve climate change articles mention that the SO2 eventually comes back to the ground; in the form of sulfuric acid laden rain. So what's the cost of the trade off between a cooler climate and no more freshwater fish or trees, and at the extreme drinking water that needs to be treated on a massive scale to restore its pH? Then there's also the uniform haze that such a scheme would create which almost undoubtedly will affect other natural systems forced to adapt to the new environment. So in response to Slocum, it's not that climate changers want to impose life style changes on others and are thus suspicious of such schemes, but that it's easier and less risky to modify a system which one has a lot of control over: human societies living in cities, as opposed to radically changing the global environment then running around trying to solve all the possible consequences to the vastly less controllable system.
In general whenever a geek says it's trivial to solve a problem one should ask whether they are actually solving the problem or simply replacing one problem with another.
Posted by: Sseziwa Mukasa at Jul 10, 2008 10:25:21 AM
Increasing CO2 levels is a form of geoengineering, as is decreasing the ozone layer. And how about that acid rain? Canada tried to sue the USA over what it was doing to their forests. "Acid rain? No such thing and it doesn't do any harm anyway. We're not doing it and you can't stop us."
If we can't make people stop doing the current geoengineering projects, how would we stop them from doing future ones? They don't have to admit that's what they're doing. They can argue that there's no proof their actions would have any effect on climate, and by the time it's proven it's too late. We can't prevent unilateral geoengineering any more than we have prevented it already.
Michael Foody is right. We don't know what results to expect from geoengineering attempts. With only one world climate to try things out on, we're limited to one experimental group of size one and no control group at all.
So we will attempt geoengineering feats because we can. If we get into a great big crisis then we'll figure it can't hurt. When the status quo is completely unacceptable then any random change might be an improvement.
Now about that idea of waging a global thermonuclear war to prevent some other nation from attempting geoengineering....
Posted by: J Thomas at Jul 10, 2008 10:55:18 AM
"I think it is sort of amusing that global warming skeptics think that we don't have the tools to tell if climate change is happening but do, or will soon, have the tools alter the climate in predictable ways."
If they were skeptics, why would the be talking about geoengineering ourselves out of this 'problem'?
Posted by: Tom at Jul 10, 2008 11:21:12 AM
Who moves last? Nature. I am willing to bet that Nature's move is not the one predicted by the so-called "geo-engineers." As I said to Robin when he first mentioned this idea (and others), engineers have no clue how complex systems work. Bridges? Fine. Buildings? Fine. Don't let them get near the environment (e.g., levees on the Mississippi, Everglades, Three Gorges, etc.)
Posted by: David Zetland at Jul 10, 2008 12:06:40 PM
"I think it is sort of amusing that global warming skeptics think that we don't have the tools to tell if climate change is happening but do, or will soon, have the tools alter the climate in predictable ways."
If they were skeptics, why would the be talking about geoengineering ourselves out of this 'problem'?
I think its amusing the global warming cult asserts that in spite of wide climatic variation over time (90 miles North of me there's coal under ground (indicative of warmy swampy climates)
and surface features (that are remnants of the last ice age), they can just say "oh goody, we like things as they are, lets keep them this way".
We can't predict the weather in one location 7 days out, let alone globally over years, decades, centuries or millenia and altering it is infinitely more
difficult.
Thity years ago, the crisismongers were telling us about "global cooling".
Posted by: Superheater at Jul 10, 2008 12:15:10 PM
Ask your average reputable geologist or climatologist and he/she will tell you that this plan is pretty asinine. While short term cooling may be achieved, the long-term effect of releasing tons of carbon back into the atmosphere would only intensify global warming. Not to mention the fact that with all we know about the earth, we know very little about its insides, and trying something like this would have dangerous consequences.
The earth has a great way of regulating its temperature throgh the carbon-silica cycle. When the earth gets hotter, rainfall increases, moving carbon from the atmosphere into the ground. A by-product of this rain is erosion, which releases calcium ions from the breakdown of silica (one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust in rock). Marine organisms combine this carbon with calcium to make shells; they eventually die, sink to the bottom, and lock the carbon away in marine limestone. As the earth cools, this limestone is buried and subducted, thanks to plate tectonics. It eventually melts and is released in volcanoes, where the carbon is put back in the atmosphere.
An understanding of this simple carbon-silica feedback cycle dictates that finding a way to turn carbon into rock on a mass scale and put it back in the ground (where we got oil from in the first place) would be a much better use of money, than releasing carbon back into the atmosphere for short-term cooling.
Posted by: Gabe at Jul 10, 2008 12:32:21 PM
Michael Foody said:
I think it is sort of amusing that global warming skeptics think that we don't have the tools to tell if climate change is happening but do, or will soon, have the tools alter the climate in predictable ways.
You must lead a pleasant life, if you are so easily amused. :)
I understand what you're saying, but I think there are important differences--at least for certain types of proposed geo-engineering solutions. In particular, if they can be turned off (like rotating solar panels in space so they block less light, or ceasing to pump aerosols into the atmosphere) then you do have a much more controlled experiment versus what the climate modelers currently have to work with.
E.g. if we pump a bunch of aerosols (on purpose) into the atmosphere, and this happens at the same time global temperatures drop .1C, but some people point out a change in some other factor that could be responsible...OK fine, we wait a year until that other factor has changed in magnitude, and then do the same experiment with the aerosols.
In contrast, we can't go back to the 1970s and rerun it, this time without aerosols.
As for David Zetland's concerns: Haven't humans radically altered the environment through agriculture, building cities, domesticating animals, and yes, buiding dams? Are you saying that if you had your druthers back in x000 BC, you would have insisted on maintaining a hunter gatherer lifestyle for the good of the humans? (I.e. if you want to say we don't have the right to mess with nature, okay that's one thing. But you seem to be saying it's playing with fire to do geo-engineering. Come to think of it, are you "for" fire?)
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Jul 10, 2008 12:34:14 PM
"countries have infrastructure for the existing climate and in general would be happy not to incur the short term costs of altering that infrastructure"
I think you misunderstand the goals of the geo-engineers, especially the SO2 seeders, they aren't going to stabilize the climate, they are going to stabilize one parameter: global average temperature, by manipulating another: albedo, but they are not holding anything else constant, hence acid rain. It's not holding the climate steady, it's simply shifting it to a new state which will still impose costs, just difference costs than the albedo change from anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, even if you hold the average temperature constant the climate can still change because there is more than one climatic state in which the global temperature has a certain value, so deserts will still shift in response to new rainfall patterns, acidic or not, and infrastructure costs will still be incurred.
An advantage to pursuing a low greenhouse emission economy is it removes anthropogenic forcing of the climate system (which will still continue to change) restoring it to the control of the much better understood climate forcings prior to the industrial age.
As for Russia warming up, it may be a mixed blessing, a warmer average may come with greater variance in temperature too, as well as shifts in rainfall patterns and desertification which won't necessarily be a boon.
Posted by: Sseziwa Mukasa at Jul 10, 2008 12:34:36 PM
The key argument for putting a noticeable chunk of World Gross Product into doing something about global warming is not that we know what is going to happen; it is that we do not know. We keep dicovering that the risk of things turning out a good deal worse than our median expectation is a bigger risk than we thought it was.
Nobody has a guaranteed solution. The remedies for global warming that we might apply fall into two groups. One is driven by economics: change in relative prices until we change behaviour "sufficiently"( a fairly arbitrary amount subject to change and correction). To make that work, the world has to march roughly in step - international co-operation is a requirement.
The other group is driven by engineering. It includes developing alternative energy sources, improving energy efficiency radically, carbon absorbtion and forms of geoengineering. Two geoengineering ideas are just about on the table - reflect more solar radiation from the outer atmosphere, and increase the carbon absorbtion capacity of the oceans. Other geoengineering possibilities seem to be in the works.
The first thing to remember about geoengineering is that it is engineering - the route from a good idea to something that works smoothly, reliably and without unpleasant side effects is long, difficult and costly (see, e.g., fusion power). Even if - which is about as likely as a frog hopping happily accross Death Valley - we find what is essentially a quick, cheap effective fix, proving that it really is going to be trouble free will cost a great deal of time, effeort and money (see medical drug testing costs).
The second thing to remember about geo-engineering is that somebody else in the world will have an effective veto. For example, if the USA says that it is going to unilaterally increase the planet's reflectivity, Russia (and/or other countries) will have the option of saying "In that case, we will further increase the reflectivity selectively, over North America." (Don't say that is not possible, it is only slightly harder than the planet wide job.) Etc., for every geoengineering project yet imagined. There is no way of getting round the fact that we care for our small planet as a species, or we suffer the consequences.
It seems to me likely that one or some combination of geoengineering projects will in the end be applied. By the 22nd century they may well be a routine element in our mangement of our world. But it will be a bit crazy if carbon tax/carbon trading is not another element. An effective price on carbon covering its externalities is a win-win measure.
Posted by: Diversity at Jul 10, 2008 12:36:41 PM
Our current geo-engineering by free dumping is supposedly too arduous & expensive to control already, so forget about cheap fixes. Human ignorance of the functioning of the global system still allows 'skeptics' to assure us we have miniscule effect on the climate, yet we should presume to reform the planet with some theoretical techniques?
Given debates to date, can these be anything else but a strategy for business as usual? An 'engineering cure' is clearly an experimental symptomatic treatment. Side-effects are unknown and causes not addressed. Such may offer relief, but are not a cure at all.
The cause is indeed expressed in behaviors - our 'way of living': We maintain our own dependence on fossil fuels in the face of imminent scarcity. We expand their use despite their undermining the systems that keep us alive & living. We reproduce, we consume and we waste far beyond necessity....I believe you know the rest as well.
The cause is social & cultural rigidity & mal-adaption. The challenge is now adapt or die on a global scale.
Posted by: Reiner at Jul 10, 2008 1:08:51 PM
Bob Murphy: You forgot to mention you other idea, to like, boycott companies that use too much carbon.
Anyway, I think everyone needs to keep in mind that increasing temperatures is not the only problem, but also ocean acidification, shutdown of thermohaline circulation, etc. So don't fall into the trap of saying, "lower temp, problem solved".
Posted by: Person at Jul 10, 2008 1:45:22 PM
The Wilson Quarterly had a piece last spring on the history of geo-engineering. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=231274
Posted by: Becca at Jul 10, 2008 2:10:30 PM
How about just engineering?
Has the invention of the air conditioner made it so that a warmer world is a better world?
Homes on stilts boats?
Netherlands or Venice anyone?
Biochar?
We change the world in many ways just by living.
I notice that those against Geoengineering say that the climate system is too complex for us to know the consequences of any Geoengineering but that we real understand the climate system enough to know that AGW will hurt us in a big way. Seems at least a little contradictory. Perhaps they are just a little more risk averse than the rest of us.
Posted by: Floccina at Jul 10, 2008 2:58:39 PM
Floccina,
We see global warming happening as CO2 rises. Sure it is a complex system, but this is pretty straightforward. The effects of some artificially introduced carbon are very unclear, and could have unwanted effects, with different effects on different countries, especially depending on who does this emitting how and where. The first is trying to reduce something going on that is having unpleasant effects. The second is doing something never done before that has very uncertain effects.
I would say that the view of Thomas Schelling on this matter is reasonable. Geoengineering should be viewed as a backstop in case of disaster, if the more extreme top end of the warming projections come to pass something that could be done. But, barring such more extreme outcomes, trying to mitigate carbon emissions looks a lot safer than going for introducing artificial emissions to offset the carbon.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jul 10, 2008 3:32:56 PM
I don't think you can dismiss the moral hazard problem quite as easily. Geoengineering sounds cute in theory but in practice it way well be just a bandaid solution that will create more problems than it it will solve.
Possibly so -- but that's a different objection than saying,
"Geoengineering ... is a way to feed society's addiction to fossil fuels. It's like a junkie figuring out new ways of stealing from his children."
The expressed worry isn't that geoengineering won't work or would have serious side effects; the worry is that it might enable us to keep living the way we're living now and that (in their view) would be bad.
Posted by: Slocum at Jul 10, 2008 3:34:21 PM
Person seems stalkerish.
Posted by: meter at Jul 10, 2008 3:34:26 PM
The argument over geo-engineering does open up the debate to something many in the regulation crowd refuse to acknowledge: there are benefits from a warmer climate and perhaps they exceed the costs. Even the Kyoto Treaty or something similar could be considered geo-engineering, since we would be intentionally altering the current path of the climate.
Posted by: 8 at Jul 10, 2008 3:44:43 PM
Crutzen's plan makes much more sense when paired with direct carbon capture: taking carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it directly underground. Technically this is more feasible than it sounds; look up Klaus Lackner, David Keith and Wallace Broecker on this subject. This won't allow us to just emit what we want and just capture it all, but it does allow us to start thinking in terms of net emissions. Use atmospheric SO2 to block the worst of the heat, while reducing emissions and starting direct capture to make up the difference between the reduction goal and what we can actually achieve.
Note to Gabe: the proposal does not involve releasing carbon into the atmosphere, but SO2. It has side effects but they don't include adding to the carbon in circulation.
Posted by: fulmar at Jul 10, 2008 4:08:48 PM
I think that one of the best analysis I've read on this issue is the one by Scott Barrett on Environmental and Resource Economics. Worth reading: http://www.springerlink.com/content/a91294x25w065vk3/?p=1ad58a06771b4cbe89626207ff49ecb7π=5
Posted by: Pedro Linares at Jul 10, 2008 4:22:22 PM
If we could come up with geoengineering approaches that don't have many side effects, then maybe the big question would be to make sure they aren't done too much. If you don't do too much you might ameliorate the global warming problem, and if you can't predict exactly how much you'll ameliorate it still within a wide range it would do more good than harm.
Rather than sulfate crystals in the atmosphere we might have extremely thin mirrors in LEO. They could reduce insolation before they leave orbit and as continuing solids might not make too much problem when they come down. Could we afford to put enough mirrors in orbit to do some good? That would depend on how cheap they were to make and how thin and lightweight they could be and still be effective.
It would be important not to put up too many. If they disappeared at a reasonable rate we could adjust their total surface area after we decided it should change, whatever method we found to decide that.
There could be some potential for remediation. We'd have nothing to lose except the cost of doing it, provided that the side effects (from production, and expended rocket fuel, and discarded mirrors etc) didn't amount to much. And provided we were careful not to overshoot on the effect.
Posted by: J Thomas at Jul 10, 2008 4:36:57 PM
