« Celebrity Death Match | Main | Treaties »
December 15, 2006
In Part, Particles
I'm something of a global warming fatalist, fairly convinced that whatever we actually do will be much too little, far too late. So this Rolling Stone article detailing geoengineering schemes to cool the planet was heartening. Whether blasting sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere would actually work to cool the planet (all the climatological models suggest it would, though it could destroy the ocean), it's certainly something that, if the trends turn too dire, we can try. Indeed, given the difficulty in both changing American behavior and telling China, India, et al that they can't utilize the cheap energy strategies the industrial world deployed for development, planetary engineering may well prove our only hope.
Also: Who knew the military actually figured out how to control the rain?
December 15, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
I can certainly understand your point of view.
I've been there myself, in the past, with other dire
predictions. I recall a lot of reporting on global cooling in the 70's, the Paul Erlich prediction that
hundreds of millions of people would starve during the inevitable famines of the late 70's. I recall
during the Carter years we'd run out of oil completely
by the end of the 80's; even the Alar scare of 1989.
I've also seen reports contradicting the so-called human cause of global warming we're all getting worked up about now. Latest I read was an article on co2.science.org.
The Earth's climate has always fluctuated
and I doubt we can do much to change that.
Regards, HM
Posted by: HM | Dec 15, 2006 11:48:21 AM
Ezra,
I'm unsure if your post was a joke or serious (the crack about military control of the rain threw me off). Nevertheless, this is the second time in the past month or so that you've posted what amounts to a rejection of the solutions that reputable climate scientists are proposing. The fact that your repudiation is motivated by feelings of futility rather than bribes is really irrelevant (or perhaps you, too, are receiving a small stipend from Exxon).
Global warming "skeptics," who have been thoroughly repudiated and rightfully scorned by everyone not committed to ignorance (here's looking at you, HM), have been advocating exactly what you are suggesting in your post as a last-ditch effort to convince people we don't need to modify the way in which we produce energy.
The evolution of the arguments of the "skeptics" (in particular, of Patrick Michaels):
1. Global climate change isn't happening
2. While Global climate change may be happening, human activity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
3. The climate is far too complicated for us to know whether we are affecting it or not.
3. Global climate change is happening, humans have nothing to do with it, and it is good!!!!
4. Global climate change is happening, and human activity may play a part, but the climate change is happening on a very gradual, linear scale, and the market will naturally shift our use of resources away from fossil fuels before any real impacts occur.
5. Global climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, but technology will allow us, in the near future, to "regulate" the temperature, kind of like the way we regulate the temperature in our houses! One of the ways we can do this is by putting smoke-stacks up on the east coast and project particulate matter over the Atlantic Ocean!!
What I find most rediculous is that the same guys who were saying that the climate was too complicated to understand fifteen years ago are now saying that we need not worry about climate change because we will be masters of the climate in the near future.
The most reputable climate scientists agree that we can prevent the really bad impacts of climate change, and they take into account China's and India's need and right to continue to develop. Before you post crap like this, at least read some James Hansen and post some of his positive suggestions. The only thing that makes me feel futility about this subject is when we can't even get smart guys like you on board.
Posted by: RN | Dec 15, 2006 3:06:51 PM
Who knew the military actually figured out how to control the rain?
People of a certain vintage, like me.
Thanks for the link. It was a fun article to read. Wood's solution would have to be used only as a stop gap since increasing atmospheric sulfur would acidify rain just like it does when the sulfur comes from volcanoes.
RN, lighten up. I spent 3/4 of my life under the threat of mutually-assured destruction. It still could happen I suppose. But at some point you just have to resign yourself to this culture's obsession with all the things that are going to kill us. Apparently we like to be scared.
We're all gonna die!
Hmmm. Should I worry more about climate change or the killer asteroid Apophis?
Posted by: Emma Zahn | Dec 15, 2006 4:22:00 PM
AARGH. It drives me crazy that you're so fucking stupid on this issue, Ezra. Crazy.
You have completely bought into conservative spin on this, lock stock and barrel. It's NOT impossible to sharply reduce world carbon emissions. It could be done, and quickly, and at a net profit. Ideas on how to do so, with existing technology, fucking ABOUND.
All that's needed is some smart advocacy and leadership. Buying into lunatic crackpot schemes to manipulate the atmosphere with sulfur particles is just to cede the field to last-century corporations and their righty think tank soldiers.
Jesus. This is a big deal. Try to get a clue about it.
Posted by: Realish | Dec 15, 2006 8:33:28 PM
Let's take a random example. Here's the Cokenergy plant on Lake Michigan:
http://www.primaryenergy.com/facilities/Old/ci.htm
It makes blast-furnace coke. A while back, a company called Primary Energy built a power recycling plant next to it, taking all the coke-oven exhaust and converting it to electricity and heat.
That energy recycling plant took energy that was formerly wasted and created 90 MW of electricity and 500,000 pounds of steam.
In one year, the recycling plant generated as much energy as all the solar collectors in the world combined. It was a money mint, generating energy with no net added fuel input.
Now imagine if all the waste energy emitted from every power plant and factory in the U.S. were recycled.
That would blow past Kyoto goals in a few years. It could cut the CO2 emitted by the electricity sector (the biggest source) in half.
What's stopping it? Dumb electricity utility regulations and reticence on the part of banks. Want to fix that? Tweak the regulations and have the gov't provide guaranteed loans. Done.
This isn't to say this one idea is the end-all be-all. Just that there TONS of ideas out there for reducing emissions and making money. It's just bad habits, dumb regulations, a leadership void, and the apathetic ignorance of progressive pundits like you, who lavish such careful attention on health care but are so careless and stupid on this issue, that are stopping us from doing this stuff.
And you're not the only one. All the young progressive pundits these days are so good on the war, so good on populist economics, so good on political strategy, etc. etc., and so slapdash and disinterested when it comes to energy and climate change. But energy and climate change are the biggies. They are the nexus of all other issues. WTF explains the lack of smart, popular progressive blogging on them?
Again: argh.
Posted by: Realish | Dec 15, 2006 8:49:31 PM
Technologically, I think it's possible to sharply reduce CO2 emissions. Economically, I don't think it would be all that expensive. Politically, though, it seems like no one really likes the idea.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Dec 16, 2006 2:55:22 PM
