Skip to main content

Geoengineering



I belong to a facebook group on "Climate Change Discussion," and recently another participant, David, in that group offered the following reflection:

As powder is heavier than air (aerosol), as demonstrated by the two year temperature reduction after Krakatoa and similar volcanoes erupted, doesn't that mean all geoengineering is pointless (as well as extremely toxic) as the powder can only stay in the air and block the sun out for the same period and then return to the status quo? If so why do Spice and the Gates Foundation spend millions or more researching it when we probably already know not only would it be a very short term effect but probably not enough chemicals in the entire world to carry it out?

The kind of geoengineering David has in mind here provided material for a full chapter of McKenzie Funk's book, WINDFALL.

Yes, there are ideas in some circles, among people who accept that climate change is both real and troublesome, that the best way to address it is technological. If humans can add ... something ... to the existing atmospheric mix we establish a lasting temperature equilibrium.

As Funk says, there are three sorts of people who advocate geoengineering on the necessary scale, or at least serious research into how it might be done: scientists "deeply afraid of run-away climate change; free-market advocates deeply afraid of mandated carbon cuts; and the capitalists or philanthrocapitalists who sustain them both."

Newt Gingrich presumably was speaking for the second category when he said, "Geoengineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year. instead of penalizing ordinary Americans, we would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific innovation."

Parenthetically, I don't know when exactly Gingrich said that. There is no documentation of it in Windfall, and nothing more specific on the dating than that it was said prior to his presidential campaign of 2012.  Some googling gets me to other sources that agree in attributing this quote to him, and that seem to date it to 2008, when Congress was considering a carbon tax bill and Gingrich thought the prospect of an engineering fix would help kill that idea.

I'd like to thank David for bringing up the matter and giving me something upon which to ruminate.

Comments

  1. Searching for the Best Dating Site? Create an account and find your perfect match.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…