Share
Andrew Czyzewski
Reporter
The down-to-earth side of geoengineering
Earlier this week I was wading through the Government’s 142-page Energy Market Reform White Paper, in a (not entirely successful) bid to understand how exactly it might affect some of our industries.
One of the key aims of the paper is to encourage investment in low-carbon energy generation in a bid to reduce emissions, achieve our ever looming EU targets and of course ultimately mitigate climate change.
But it takes quite a leap of faith to see how Contracts for Difference (CfD), Carbon Price Floors and Emissions Performance Standards (EPS) will somehow save the world. Nevertheless, listening to people who know far more about the industry than I do, it seems it is – at the very least – a step in the right direction after ‘years of dithering’.
And it’s the same tactic being employed across Europe. Leave the free markets largely to their own devices, but gently coax them into dabbling in green tech and eventually everyone will see the light of their own accord. It might work. But it certainly won’t be quick, and if you subscribe to even the most conservative climate models (and I know not all of our readers do) then we’re in for a warm time of it regardless.
I certainly wouldn’t consider myself a green evangelist, but deep into those 142 pages, my mind wandered to more radical solutions, namely geo-engineering. Yes, I know the idea of deliberately manipulating the Earth’s climate to negate warming is not a new one, and some of the ‘solutions’ are far-fetched to say the least, but it’s been slowly creeping back onto the agenda.
Last month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) met to discuss the feasibility of such measures as blasting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight into space; depositing massive quantities of iron filings into the oceans; and bio-engineering crops to be a lighter colour to reflect sunlight. Its intention was to set a framework for research in member countries, with a possible view to medium scale trials at some point in the near future.
Predictably, there was fierce opposition even to this modest statement of intent, culminating in a published letter to Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC from a group of more than 125 environment and human rights groups from 40 countries.
‘Indigenous peoples and social movements have all expressed outright opposition to such measures as a false solution to the climate crisis… asking a group of geo-engineering scientists if more research should be done is like asking bears if they would like honey.’
Well it seems we have some sweet-toothed bears, since Britain, along with the US, is strongly backing geo-engineering research both with both public funding and wealthy private investors and corporations. Only last week the EPSRC awarded grants totalling £3.3 million to two geo-engineering projects.
One project, headed by Dr Matt Watson at Bristol University, takes inspiration from the massive Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991 which cooled the planet by half a degree in the subsequent year through the reflective sulphate particles it deposited.
The team are evaluating the feasibility of launching a balloon system into the stratosphere (at around 20-25km) to release particles sulphate – with a protoype balloon planned for launch at 1km.
Meanwhile, in the private sector it has been reported that Bill Gates has recently put up $400m for two marine based methods involving cloud seeding to create more reflective clouds and another to mix warm water from the surface of the ocean with colder water at greater depths to suppress hurricanes.
And Richard Branson has long put his weight behind carbon capture and storage technologies with his ‘carbon war room’ initiative.
Cynics would argue it’s less about philanthropy and more about money making since entrepreneurs stand to make billions through a global system of trading carbon credits. Indeed, last month Branson told a conference in Sydney that ‘climate change is the greatest wealth creation opportunity of our lifetime.’
Last night I attended a round table discussion on geo-engineering hosted by Professor Tim Lenton of Exeter University, who according to the Financial Times is one of the world’s 10 most influential climate scientists. He’s also the protégée of James Lovelock, originator of Gaia theory (which has a harmonious view of the planet as finely balanced organism of sorts) so I was expecting a bit of geo-engineering bashing.
But while he quite convincingly rubbished ideas like space mirrors and ocean fertilisation, he was lukewarm (pardon the pun) on stratospheric sulphur particulate dispersal and positively enthusiastic about carbon capture and storage technologies.
‘My point is simply, twiddle both dials: turn down emissions and create some [carbon] sinks and then we might start getting somewhere,’ he said.
‘Although I’m not a great free-marketer I think it’s about setting parameters of cost and credits, and then actually, you do want entrepreneurs and you do want the innovation sector to come in and just run with that because they see the future opportunities in being the first to lead the way with carbon removal technologies.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (15)
John Prendergast | 15 Jul 2011 1:13 pm
These schemes are less about philanthropy and more about Tax breaks.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jonathan | 15 Jul 2011 1:14 pm
Global warming is inevitable and natural. It is part of geocycle more than a million years wide. We are merely returning to environmental conditions at set state equilibrium for the whole terrestrial system. The carbonic acid/limestone system is part of this. Methane seeps from the earth's crust as hydrate/clathrate deposits thaw. The polar ice caps are receding as they should. We have only tweeked a process that was already in occurence.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15 Jul 2011 1:35 pm
There is no scientific concensus about man-made global warming - as the other contributor said, global warming will continue. The governments of the world are confused in their aims; should they be saving energy waste or should they be playing with the atmosphere. They should definitely be conserving energy, not giving away money to academics to play.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Justin | 15 Jul 2011 1:44 pm
Surely the risk of over-compensating is just too great, if mankinds efforts co-incide with another major eruption.Also what if the science is wrong? not everyone agrees that carbon is the big bad.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Clive | 15 Jul 2011 2:31 pm
I read an article the other day which said
were heading for another ice age due to
decreased solar activity - I don't know
what to believe.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
geoscientist | 15 Jul 2011 4:55 pm
Considering that absolutely no one has succeeded in explaining the imbalance in the carbon cycle in virtually every model built I'd say that Branson's quote pretty much says it all:
‘climate change is the greatest wealth creation opportunity of our lifetime.’
Its all about the money.
Roughly 50% of all the carbon input each year from both fossil fuel sources and forest burning is not appearing in the atmosphere and no one has been able to account for it in any other carbon sink. It shows pretty clearly how little we really know. The data is questionable at best. Engineering a solution to problem we don't even understand is pretty stupid. The reason no one will object to carbon sequestration is that it can't really cause any harm other than the economic costs. Sulphur, cloud seeding, and iron fertilization could have major unintended consequences.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jane3246 | 15 Jul 2011 7:21 pm
What I find interesting is that those who believe global warming is not man-made (i.e. some natural cycle), seem to think therefore it isn't occurring or if they believe it is occurring do not believe that humans can have any effect to mitigate it. This attitude is just willful ignorance.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Jul 2011 1:55 am
I think what you are talking about is spraying thousands of tons of aluminium and barium into the stratosphere to stop the suns rays. This is also a quick way to poison the earth and us humans. Making us dependant on Monsanto aluminium resistant seeds. Go research what IS HAPPENING NOW. This is very serious indeed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
randydutton | 16 Jul 2011 2:15 am
The US already has been geo-engineering by getting taxpayers to subsidize food to fuel ethanol and by mandating it in our fuel. The outcome? 40 million acres put into production, and because most of that is marginal farmland, most requires considerable irrigation which dramatically increases water vapor, and fertilizer, 3% of which goes into the air as N2O (296X worse than CO2). Oh, wait a minute. Water vapor also is worse than CO2. And plowing up fallow ground increases the 'carbon debt'. Oh well, as Branson said, "another moneymaking opportunity" - just as Al Gore found out. Gore's worth over $100 million now with his 'green profiteering'.
Want more geo-engineering? Putting ethanol into our fuel damages or destroys half the cars tested, including burning out catalytic converters, which are designed to reduce NOx. Guess what!? NOx is a global warming gas! And E15 damages many of the 300 million open cycle engines: motorcycles, boat motors, gas power equipment, ATVs, etc. So NOW we get to buy new equipment from China! Oh joy! China will burn more high sulfur coal to make more stuff for us.
Meanwhile, I live in the NW US where we still are waiting for summer. It's averaging 60 degrees F as a high, and it’s raining.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Jul 2011 12:10 pm
I would say global warming in some ways is natural. The amount of CO2 released by humans is low in comparison to the total amount released into the atmosphere. However our portion is increasing and the way we go about pillaging the earth’s resources is plainly wrong with no consideration to future generations. Jacque Fresco is a very influential person in this area and attacks the current system arguing that it is to blame for not only climate change, but the rise in cancer we see today. What one would say is that in many regards geo-engineering may be vital in the future survival of earth; however it is a very delicate subject attempting to manipulate earth’s atmosphere.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment