Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Climate Adviser Open to Geo-Engineering to Tackle Global Warming
The global warming situation has become so dire that Barack Obama's chief scientific adviser has raised with the president the possibility of massive-scale technological fixes to alter the climate known as 'geo-engineering'.
John Holdren, who is a member of the president's cabinet, said today the drastic measures should not be "off the table" in discussions on how best to tackle climate change. While his office insisted that he was not proposing a dramatic switch in policy, Holdren said geo-engineering could not be ruled out.
"It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table," Holdren said in an interview with Associated Press. He made clear these were his personal views.
The suite of mega-technological fixes includes everything from placing mirrors in space that reflect sunlight from the Earth, to fertilising the oceans with iron to encourage the growth of algae that can soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide. Another option is to seed clouds which bounce the sun's rays back into space so they do not warm the Earth's surface.
Such global-scale technological solutions to climate change may seem fantastical, but increasing numbers of scientists argue that the technologies should at least be investigated.
Holdren's comments do not mean that the US government is raising the priority of geo-engineering. A spokesman for the US Government's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) - which Holdren directs - said "the administration's primary focus is still to seek comprehensive energy legislation that can get us closer to a clean energy economy, and can create green jobs while reducing dependence on foreign oil."
Advocates of the technology have welcomed the comments. Stephen Salter, an engineer at Edinburgh University and a pioneer of techniques to seed clouds so that they reflect the Sun's rays back into space, said: "Everyone working in geo-engineering works with some reluctance: we hope it'll never be needed, but we fear it might be needed very very urgently. Holden is echoing that exactly. It's very encouraging - we've had extremely negative reactions from the UK governments."
Salter said that geo-engineering techniques were the only methods that would lower world temperatures quickly enough. Even if the world stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, he said, the world would continue to get hotter for several decades. "Opponents say it would take the pressure off getting the renewables developed. I've been working on renewables since 1973 and stopped because we're too late, we wasted too much time. We may have a panic very soon because of the way the Arctic ice is going."
Greenpeace chief scientist Doug Parr, however, has said: "The wider point is not the pros and cons of particular technologies, but that the scientific community is becoming so scared of our collective inability to tackle climate emissions that such outlandish schemes are being considered for serious study. We already have the technology and know-how to make dramatic cuts in global emissions - but it's not happening, and those closest to the climate science are coming near to pressing the panic button."
Holdren acknowledged that some of the potential geo-engineering solutions could have side effects, and that such actions should not be taken lightly.
Though cloud-seeding, for example, would cool the earth, it would also lead to more acidic oceans, since the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - and therefore the CO2 absorbed into the seas - would keep increasing. But Holdren added: "We might get desperate enough to want to use it."
His comments seemed to go against those he made in a speech to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2007. There, he highlighted geo-engineering's potential to help cool the atmosphere or to remove greenhouse gases, but acknowledged the methods would likely require significant investment, and also warned against expecting a single technological solution to solve energy and climate problems. "Belief in technological miracles is generally a mistake," he said.
Writing last year in a special edition of the Royal Society journal Philosophical Transactions that was dedicated to geo-engineering, Brian Launder of the University of Manchester and Michael Thompson of the University of Cambridge said: "While such geo-scale interventions may be risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky than doing nothing. There is increasingly the sense that governments are failing to come to grips with the urgency of setting in place measures that will assuredly lead to our planet reaching a safe equilibrium."
In a series of papers, experts said that a reluctance "at virtually all levels" to address rising greenhouse gas emissions meant carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were on track to pass 650 parts per million, which could bring an average global temperature rise of 4C. They called for more research on geo-engineering options to cool the earth.
50 Comments so far
Show AllMy concern is that climate change is going to interfere with the free market capitalistic system. Under no circumstances should this be allowed to happen nor should we be forced to turn to some commie socialist no growth garbage that would have us living in sustainable relations with the Earth System. We are not a bunch of Earth Firsters but the United States of America.
Never, never underestimate the power of the American Free Enterprise System to solve any problem once you get guvment out of the way and quit taxing the initiative of our God chosen citizens.
Geo Engineering solution:
take a structure 1/2 height and width of aircraft carrior floating out in the ocean that goes round in a big circle 20 miles in diameter - cost $3-5 billion (we're going to need 5-10 of them)
heat the water up on the inside using lava vents off hawaii - this heats the water up and creates a low pressure zone (you could skip this step cause the water will heat up with usage)
shoot the water inside back inside via fountains - this creates a hot mist that'll rise up and billow out into clouds (no choice - sun will increase the convection cycle)
clouds reflect the suns ray's back into space vs the ocean which sucks up the suns ray's -- enough ray's bounced back into space and you'll end global warming
in addition you could use it to create rain over area's in drought and for agriculture and drinking water
right now drought has caused horrible impacts on agriculture and 860 million people are starving
half of all frogs are gone
in the kyoto 3 documents it states that reducing carbon emmisions will have no effect for 20 years if the whole world doesn't pitch in
also states that if we dont do it we're screwed but doesn't take into account the methane comming up everywhere which should overshadow any reductions we make so .....
Weather modification research has been going on for decades, with the U.S. Defense Department providing the most funding.
The HAARP project uses 'seeded' metal particles in the high levels of the atmosphere for its' communication system, and the missile defense system is tied into that project.
I knew it was only a matter of time before the blowhards who have been touting 'cloud seeding' would go public; with all of the stacks of Defense Department research done on this subject, they can't wait to tell everyone about its' successes.
The only problems are: health effects on humans, plants and animals (so far there are only a handful of studies there, although the results are not promising in the least), the cost (upwards of 2 billion a year for a total sky 'shield') and the biggest: once the program has been started, it can't be stopped without a doubling of heat in the atmosphere.
Too bad it's already been going on for well over 5 years, with NOAA's radar and state-of-the-art monitoring equipment. (What DID you think those lines in the skies were!?)
So, does this sound like a viable plan to you?
Don't confuse localized weather modification with climate modification.
However, yes, weather modification is a military weapon. See Weather as a Force Multiplier, Owning The Weather by 2025, published by the Air Force
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
Stuff like.
Precipitation Enhancement- Floods
Decrease Comfort Level/Morale
Storm Enhancement
Precipitation Denial
- Deny Fresh Water
- Induce Drought
I wonder how and where they test their weapon. Wink.
Good points, especially the one about doubling of heat in the atmosphere. I am reminded of an interview yesterday on Infowars with Rosalin Peterson of California Skywatch, who covered some of this material in relation to chemtrails. I really would like to see a much greater focus on military implications in climate and other ecologic issues. Was any of this covered in "An Inconvenient Truth"? I still haven't viewed it, but it seems to me that almost all the current discussion of "global warming" and "climate change" has ignored the military aspect.
Get the book.
Study the big chart.
Nature will stomp geo-engineering like a bug.
A "Global War on Global Warming" should be declared. That'll rally the troops!
You may not be aware of the power of your statement.
1940s: America at war. All civilians sacrificed personal possessions and consumption (not to mention the lives of their families) to give to the war effort.
1960: America's race to the Moon. A galvanizing time when we were captivated and proud of this monumental engineering achievement.
Alas, since then, selfishness and greed are now the only common denominator linking Americans.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
CHEMTRAILS!! Look up as much as possible on CHEMTRAILS and the possible effects and consequences for humans, other animal life, plants, etc. Not pretty!
Also an article at Infowars.com worth considering, written by Steve Watson: "Obama's Plan to "Geo-Engineer" the Planet Mirrors CFR Documents".
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-plan-to-geo-engineer-the-planet-mirrors-cfr-policy-documents/
I would also like to refer to an article by Martin Croucher, "Is Human Tampering Causing Extreme Weather?", which discusses HAARP technology and its potential to weaponize weather.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=24787
In the Croucher article, he makes reference to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, researcher and activist. There's a good amount of material by and about Dr. Bertell to be Googled and I believe also well worth investigating. Here is one video link to an interview in which she briefly discusses chemtrails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st3lHWZTrwQ
See also Weather as a Force Multiplier, Owning The Weather by 2025, published by the Air Force
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
They were doing it about a year ago from the gulf of mex to water Atlanta
Geo-engineering?!?!
Makes going into Iraq look like a good idea.
Will we be a successful species if we kill ourselves before Nature kills us?
What f^&king idiots!
It's a natural cycle, folks. All we got to do is get the GHGs back into normal range. Put war and profit on hold for 50 years. Insulate, plant gardens and dig in.
this exert from the print version of today's daily paper, regarding the very same subject, seems to be the part that common dreams edited out. go figure.
"john holdren said the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. one option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort."
hey john, we're fast approaching the last resort. let's see, we've polluted the ground, the water, the air we breathe. why not the upper atmosphere as well.
A heart patient doesn't always quit smoking, exercise or take his medicine properly, knowing he can always get a stent or bypass. If we all start believing geo-engineering will be some sort of crutch, mitigation won't happen. Its bad enough with the skeptics and deniers already.
I don't buy in to the paranoia about artificial sulfate aerosols already being in place, but it would be prudent for the government to plan for climate refugees, energy rationing, border defense, food distribution... and emergency geoengineering. Just in case things happen fast.
Air pollution is an excellent reflector of the sun's rays back into space. Perhap's we could come up with a way of putting particulates into the atmosphere without the CO2 that usually goes with them. I've got it! Nanoparticles. They could be put into the atmosphere with nanobombs detonated high above the earth in the jet stream. They could be made of a reflective material such as aluminum foil. If made small enough and of the right shape and size they would probably stay in the jet stream nearly forever. Could be some minor problems to iron out such as the particles getting sucked into jet engines. Let's give it a try. What have we got to lose?
This is like terrorism. Government says if you don't accept cap and trade and lower living standards we are going to dump chemicals in the stratosphere all over the world and iron in the oceans and use the planet as a great laboratory to experiment in climate change. It will be argued that man emits CO2 so we are already experimenting, but the difference is, we emit only 4% of the CO2, nature emits the rest, assuming you are inclined to say man is not part of nature. CO2 in air is natural, dumping large amounts of iron in oceans is not.
Nobody understands climate enough to change it in the way they want to change it, and you have to wait 30 or so years to know what change you precipitated, perhaps they inadvertently end up accelerating the coming ice age, those who did the experiments will be dead and buried while billions die of famine and cold. Of course they will use these wonderful models that are riddled with assumptions and use data with large uncertainties to say all will be well, just like those financial models that said derivatives were an instrument of stability. Of course, people will argue that CO2 by man has already changed climate and made it warmer, and I would say, perhaps to some degree it has, but that the change thus far has been beneficial.
And I don't know about anyone else, but I froze my butt off this winter, and it is still miserable in April.
Just a matter of time before they say it is time to re-engineer the human race and start altering DNA.
Declaring something as a fact, does not make it a fact. This guy should set "believers" back at least 20 years.
"Science" advisor?
Denying a fact does not negate it.
Everyone needs to stop driving their cars.
It is just that simple but it can't happen due to the way that we all live so we are doomed like the lemmings.
We are putting the pedal to the metal and driving over the cliff.
I have been watching this happen for thirty years and my heart has broken a thousand times watching one life form after another go extinct and knowing that the humans just don't think that their number will come up.
We are on the list...after the lions, tigers and bears.
My husband is a biologist who has spent most of his life trying to protect habitat for endangered species of monkeys.
Now the Big Monkey is in trouble and there is such fright in the environmental community that it is hard to convey.
At this point I don't know what the answer is but I do know that I don't have a lot of faith in cloud seeding or other stuff like that.
It could start raining and never stop. Who knows? It's not going to be pretty.
The earth is over populated with humans and their messy machines.
We'll all see the Big Picture soon and maybe then we will act like we have some sense and try to pull together.
Maybe it's time for some class-action suits against environmental organizations like Sierra Club. Most of us who joined them did so to learn about the environment and our damage of it, and expect information like this article from them in exchange for our yearly dues. Instead we get Ten Fun Ways to Save the Planet, followed by 40 pages of trips we can take by plane to visit the places our plane emissions are melting and frying. When we're willing to forgo fulfillment for the planet, and big environmental organizations are willing to put the planet ahead of our latest fulfillment fix, maybe I'll believe this can be solved. At the moment, I'll bet we're going to stay fulfilled until the water rises to our personal doorsteps.
This is close to calling for obama to resign and step down. An idea as dangerous as this just criminal and/or stupid.
Here are 2 links to the EPA's site on sulfur, you will have to copy and paste or google them:
http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/hlth1.html
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/248
They are stealing the economy and now it appears, with no remorse, they have developed a plan to poison the people. It will do one thing and very slowly, it will depopulate the humans on the planet.
Risky? A lot more risky than forcing the human population to decrease. As 'intelligent' as humans could be, doing so can be done a lot more humanly than 'blasting sulfur into the air'.
An insurance company's dream and it would not surprise me if this wasn't suggested by an insurance company.
Another edit, I saw this on truthdig a little while ago and it uses the 'blasting sulfur into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Go figure.
I find it strange that nobody is mentioning that fact that this has already been going on for Ten years, at least. All you have to do is Look Up and Observe.
A former federal govt employee Clifford Carnicom has documented this at his site below.
http://www.carnicom.com/
What I find hopeful is the amount of anger about it. Yes, they are spraying the skies. What are we going to do about it. When more people wake up, we can really start to Clear the Air.
If there is geo-engineering done, pray to anything that the army corp of engineers aren't in charge.
Indeed it has been happening over Los Angeles and outlying areas.
It makes the sun look greasy and changes the color of the sky.
The trees are all weakened and getting diseases so who knows what is happeneing to the humans and their immune systems.
My family has lived in SoCal for over 100 years and we left 10 years ago after the seeding began.
So sad for everyone.
we are wrecking what was a good, working planet and ecosystem...our 'thinking' has done this, via our behavior...if we continue to follow our 'thinking', only more of the same will result...we are bad at planetary management, even if we sincerely intended to try it, so should do less, not more...please let go of old, selfish notions regarding life here, and embrace the smaller, natural model...the harder we resist this change, the harder the change will hit, anyway...stop trying to 'be something', and relax into a life of harmonious cooperation...property ownership is large...how will we allow folks to live, respectfully, without titles and deeds? we must find a way to share, and encourage...
The indigenous peoples of the world knew that they were part of nature and for the most part acted accordingly.
Nothing was taken without a new sprout replanted
and when the turtles got too small no one hunted them for food until their size indicated that the population was healthy.
This may all seem silly thinking for modern man but it is really just basic common sense if you want to survive.
There is a difference from thinking that things like the automobile are a good idea and Knowing that the price we will have to pay is too high.
We are all in this together.
We have to remember how to act accordingly.
Rather than spending all that money on potentially counter-productive geo-engineering, how about we work on improving energy efficiency and sustainable approaches to living? It sure would put a lot more people to work, whereas these geo-engineering projects will, as usual, reward the elite few.
I heard this on NPR this morning - it scared the bejeebus out of me!
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
It looks like people here get the picture. All we can expect from government is schemes like those described in the article. If implemented on a scale large enough to have an effect on global climate, these schemes are bound to have unforseen environmental effects that could be catastrophic.
What is needed is for the people (yes, you and me) to take the lead. Make the changes in our own lives: overwhelm the public transportation systems with huge increases in ridership; crowd cars off the streets with bicycles, drive airlines out of business due to lack of passengers, grow our own food and buy from farmers' markets, etc. Then maybe government will follow.
"...crowd cars off the streets with bicycles..."
Isn't working in China. Won't work here. Sorry.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
I think that the time is coming soon where we won't have a choice.
Bikes worked in China for a long time.
The bicycle is the most efficient form of tranportation on the planet.
Think of a town with no cars, a clear sky, the sweet smell of flowers and trees on the breeze.
Think of folks walking and cycling everywhere.
Everyone would be happier and healthier.
The automobile has only been around for 100 years.
And look what's happened.
Having lived in China for many years I can tell you about the many bodies of crushed bicyclists I have seen under buses and the party elites luxury cars.
100 years ago we had horses. Forests had to be cut down to grow food for the horses. Horse dung littered the streets. In China they just used human power to get around, had some coolie carry you around on a rickshaw. Life expectancy of these rickshaw drivers was not very long.
I could not agree with you more. What I meant to say was that China was once a county of bicycles, LOTS of bicycles, yet cars have forced them off the road. If all it took was a lot of bicycles to force cars off the road, we would not have seen bicycles in China become mere speed bumps for cars.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
Sounds like its about as good of a plan as this one:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/addressing_climate_crisis_bush
man geoengineering is such a stupidly bad idea it almost makes me sicker thinking about it than climate change in general. yeah lets not stop the disease and only treat the symptoms. and "artificial trees"? how about we try planting some real ones instead?
Walking, bicycling, localized economies, sane agriculture policy ... Let's get these things on the table now, for real. We don't need the equivalent of an ecological star wars program that will just enrich engineering corporations ... and probably not work.
Lessee, organic production of food by increasing the microorganisms in our depleted soils(instead of acidifying the oceans and water systems with petro fertilizers) around the world would be a start...as would curtailing use of automobiles commuting to paper pushing jobs, and then theres' the flaring off of natural gases around the arctic rim (and elswhere)where the oil extraction is...(this pig's in space scenario is as stupid as the emperors new clothes, wake up, people of earth)..the answer is to live and love, while we still can, as simply as possible and be thankful that we have this time to do what is right..not necessarily profitable, sustainability should be the goal of the future, not 'growth'...and then what to do about those pesky volcanoes and earthquakes that are getting busy..I think Earth is trying to tell us something and we better start listening.
Inaction on global warming may put millions of cadavers on the dissection table.
Fertilize the oceans = algal bloom. this may reduce CO2 in the short term, then it dies, rots, sucks the O2 out of the water, kills off the fish and plankton and releases all the CO2 back. Sounds like a great idea.
Mirrors in space? Cloud seeding? They don't reduce the CO2. High CO2=acid oceans= dead fish (anyone who has an aquarium knows that fish are sensitive to pH) what about solar and wind power on the ground to shut down the coal fired generators?
what about rationing gasoline? 20L(5 gallons) per person per week.
They left out the scheme about grinding up all the world's limestone to buffer the ocean water!
and the scheme where everybody wears white hats and gets old so we reflect more light into space.
You can do your part! Stop having children. When the average age of the human population reaches 83.4 and everybody is either white-haired or bald Earth's albedo will be raised by 11.735% and we will tip into another ice age. (If everyone spends all day outside and doesn't look up at the sky too much.)
Rationing gasoline works for city-folk; how about rural folk that are 30 miles from the nearest town, who also need to haul stuff to the nearest terminus 60 miles distant?
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
What about rationining gasoline to ZERO gallons per week?
It's the mindset that must change, and keeping ANY remnants of the old, unsustainable one will not allow for this.
Instead of fixing the mess, we throw money and brilliant minds away managing the problem; instead of finding a solution.
Normal, yes it is, we are used to it. The medical establishment and the monetary system are run the same way. We will worry about the fallout later.
Don't get me wrong, this may be the right thing to do if we want keep the place habitable for humans.
If the scenario described by Alok Jha in his piece comes to pass, there will still be global warming deniers on the payroll of polluting industries...except for the ones that successfully bid on the contracts to build the structures.
"Such global-scale technological solutions to climate change may seem fantastical, but increasing numbers of scientists argue that the technologies should at least be investigated."
Don't worry, conservatives are working on the problem. No people, no problem.
If this is allowed in dynamic system, there will be collateral damage.
Question is , will it be acceptable. Who decides, who cares, who dares to speak up.
toophat for you!
The contention is between the cause of Global Climate Change not wether it is changing or not.
glenn ford
You sir are correct.
There is no "contention" as to the cause, only ignorance.
WereInThisTogether
You sir are wrong.