In 2008 Prof. Alan Robock of Rutgers published a paper in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists entitled "20 Reasons why Geoengineering may be a bad idea." Prof. Robock's article is mostly a criticism of the well known atmospheric sulphuric acid aerosol geoengineering proposal, but he manages to tar all geoengineering proposals with the same brush.
I've listed each of Prof. Robock's 20 points below, and then evaluated the CO2 Antarctic Pumpdown (CAP) geoengineering proposal that I am advocating in light of Prof. Robock's concerns.
1. Effects on regional climate
Prof. Robock raises the concern that loading the atmosphere with aerosols will cause droughts and other damaging local climate effects. However, the CAP proposal does not involve loading the atmosphere with aerosols. The main effect of the CAP concept will be to reduce GLOBAL CO2 levels, counteracting Global Warming on a planet-wide basis.
2. Continued Ocean acidification
The CAP proposal would REDUCE ocean acidification by reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Ozone depletion
Prof. Robock is concerned that geoengineering proposal that call for loading the upper atmosphere with sulfuric acid will cause ozone depletion. However, the CAP proposal would have no effect on the ozone.
4. Effects on plants
The CAP proposal would have no direct effect on plants. Removal of CO2 from the atmosphere would tend to reduce the effects of extra CO2 on plant growth.
5. More acid deposition
The CAP proposal does NOT involve putting acid into the atmosphere and would not entail more acid deposition
6. Effects on cirrus clouds
The CAP proposal has no effect on cirrus clouds.
7. Whitening of the skies
The CAP proposal would have no effect on global skies, other than removing CO2.
8. Less sun for solar power
The CAP proposal does not dim or block sunlight in any way.
9. Environmental impacts of implementation
Some industrial capacity would have to be dedicated to manufacturing tons of buckyballs and the appropriate chemicals used in the CAP process. However, because the buckyballs and the captured CO2 would be buried in snow and captured in the Antarctic Ice Sheet, local environmental damage would be minimal.
10. Rapid Warming if Deployment stops
If the CAP process is started and then stopped, the CO2 that has been removed from the atmosphere and stored in the cryosphere will remain in storage. No additional upkeep or maintenance is needed to keep the CO2 safe in the geologic reservoir.
11. There's no going back
This isn't true for the CAP concept. It would be relatively easy to retrieve the CO2 from the cryosphere by drilling down to the zones where CO2 and buckyballs would be found. Of course this wouldn't be done unless a better storage concept was developed later.
12. Human error
Always possible.
13. Undermining emissions mitigation
It would be difficult to imagine anything undermining emissions mitigation more then the collapse of the UN process towards a binding post-Kyoto treaty which occurred in Copenhagen in 2010, unless it was the recent bilateral "climate change" agreement between the US and China which placed no limits on China's rapidly growing CO2 emissions.
It is precisely the failure of emissions mitigation efforts that create a need for geoengineering.
14. Cost
The CAP geoengineering concept would be hugely expensive to implement. But the cost of allowing CO2 to reach ever higher levels in the atmosphere has a considerably greater cost.
15. Commercial control of technology
Prof. Robock is concerned that individuals or corporations might patent certain aspects of geoengineering technology and even profit from it. However, certainly this is minor problem compared to the climate catastrophe that unchecked global warming represents.
16. Military use of the technology
There are no military applications of the CAP concept. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere does not constitute an attack on any country or region.
17. Conflicts with current treaties
Prof. Robock notes that the US is party to treaties that outlaw hostile climate modification. But the CAP concept reduces GLOBAL CO2 levels and therefore does not constitute "hostile climate modification." If anything the continuing release of CO2 into the atmosphere might be considered to be "hostile climate modification".
18. Control of the thermostat
The CAP geoengineering concept does not directly change the temperature of the earth--it simply reduces atmosphere CO2 levels. Given that every country on earth is dumping their waste CO2 into the atmosphere, removing some of the CO2 simply returns the earth to a more natural condition where climate variability returns to its natural condition.
19. Questions of moral authority
Dr. Robock notes that now that humans are aware that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are causing global warming, it can be seen as immoral to continue emitting CO2. By the same logic, however, it is immoral not to take steps to remove anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere through geoenginering.
20. Unexpected Consequences
Prof. Robock raises concerns that geoengineering may result in unexpected consequences. But by the same token, allowing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere is going to have some terrible consequences that we can predict with certainty, like rising sea level. And no doubt allowing the buildup of CO2 to continue in earth's atmosphere will produce additional unexpected and unpleasant consequences that we haven't foreseen.
----------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment