Debate: Geoengineering

[]

[]

[]

[]

Is geoengineering a good idea?

Background and context

Geo-engineering is the concept of engineering natural systems here on Earth to improve or hold off the effects of global warming. Some examples of these projects are to brighten the clouds using seawater, influencing algae blooms to absorb carbon dioxide, blocking incoming UV rays using an instillation of space mirrors. While all of these projects have the capability to give humanity time to solve its problems, they are also extremely controversial because they may not take into account the complexity of natural systems and could result in unintended consequences.

Background (experts: Kaeli Jerome and Ally Beerle) [auothorship needs to be removed, although it can be tracked on the history page for this article]:

Currently, there is no consensus on whether or not geoengineering is a good or bad idea, but there are many tests and proposals to see if it would really help Earth. Even though there are many ideas and theories, it would be extremely difficult to implement these. If these proposals are done wrong, there could be unfortunate consequences. If these proposals are done correctly, there may be consequences and these proposals cannot be stopped once started. One of the proposals is a solar radiation management, which is a project to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth, which would counteract[[1]] global warming. This theory was developed by Professor Roger Angel, Professor Paul Crutzen, Professor John Latham, and engineer Stephen Salter. Another proposal was suggested by Professor Tim Lenton and his colleagues. His proposal suggests that by influencing solar radiation, it will limit the Arctic sea ice loss, which will remove most of the greenhouse gases[[2]]. Even though there are risks, the scientists are well aware of these and are trying to work around them. Are these risks worth taking, or should we put everything on a hold? Is there enough time for either of these?

In the United States, Barack Obama’s Climate Advisor is for the use of geoengineering. His favored method is shooting particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect some of the sun’s rays. But he seems wary about using it as a definite solution. Based on readings he seems to be worrying about using it as a solution which most likely puts him on the negative side; being worried about the consequences of geoengineering.

Geoengineering is a new technology for which the effects are uncertain. It is aimed at affecting the planet on a global scale. Though we can predict unknowns which we account for there are unknown unknowns which we don’t even think about and whose results are unforeseeable. The question is not whether or not we should do it but whether the negative outcomes of doing are greater than the outcome if we do nothing. So is it responsible to partake in an endeavor for which the outcome is unknown? Does the threat of what might happen from the unknowns justify what might be gained or are the threats of the unknowns too great?

[]

[]

[]

[]

Is it responsible to partake in geoengineering, when not all of the effects are known? (Group 6 revised)

[]

Pro

Support

Some research companies and organizations, such as NERC (National Environmental Research Council are in favor and support research behind geo-engineering. National programs, such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) view geo-engineering as a viable way to deal with Climate Change.

NERC- [3]

EPA- [4]

1. If we do not undertake it, the effects will be much worse than anything that could happen if we did work with it, and possibly made mistakes.

a. The tests that have already been carried out, using geoengineering, have been very successful and they are doing what they are supposed to.

b. An example of that are the several solar radiation projects (such as using pale-colored roofs to send back the sun’s light and doing the same to pavement).

c. Other project such as inducing algae boom with iron, to keep carbon dioxide from accumulating in water is also making a big positive impact.

d. Very rarely, one of these projects goes bad, and even when they do, much is learned from it and the problem is soon fixed.

2. Out of mistakes, a lot of astounding ideas are born, and with these ideas, genial solutions are thought of, thus fixing the problem. This has been shown throughout human history, and it is no mystery that this happens to everyone.

a. A good example is the use of technology, because mistakes are constantly made when new technologies are made, but from those mistakes, people learn and better said technology.

b. Medicine is another example, given that it has evolved throughout the years. Some developed from war, and are now applied to the common citizen.

c. Some unexpected side-effects may actually result in positive outcomes.

d. Many solutions mimic what happens in nature, naturally (add sulfur to the atmosphere similar to a volcanoes, fertilizing algae blooms in the ocean to consume carbon).

3. Geo-engineering may be the only way to solve intense issues plaguing the planet (such as global warming) and the benefits of solving these issues would greatly out way potential problems.

a. Science has shown that some methods may actually be able to reduce the amount of carbon or lower the atmospheric temperature.

b. Two examples of this are: fertilizing the oceans to raise the amount of allege. They would then consume greater amounts of carbon dioxide. Another way to work towards ending global warming would be to install mirrors in the atmosphere. These mirrors would bounce back solar radiation, reducing the total solar power. Using mirrors could have no negative impact on the planet.

c. Another example came from Nobel Prize award winning author, Paul Crutzen who proposed releasing debris in the atmosphere of the earth to create a haze, cooling the earth. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University also supports these theories and findings.

d. Global warming has been a predicted problem since 1965. In 1965, Al Gore and a panel of other environmental scientists warned the President at the time, Lydon B. Johnson that the global temperature was predicted to rise due to the increased amounts of carbon.

4. Another benefit of Geo-engineering is the jobs that it is bound to create.

a. Many people will be needed to participate in the field.

b. Jobs could be as diverse as engineering, testing methods and implicating them,

c. The economy is currently in a recession, this new field could really create new jobs in a world where there are fewer every day.

d. New jobs and innovations could lead to more new fields and more jobs.

[]

Con

Support- research done by many universities (such as Oregon State University), as well as research by organizations such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research agreed that many geo-engineering proposals would have grave negative implications. Public opinion shows reservation to using geo-engineering as a way to solve climate change.

1. There is no way of understanding all implications of our actions before they are completed. If we carry out something, the results may be irreversible and drastic.

a. For example, the atomic bomb was never predicted to be as powerful as it turned out to be, as a result many thousands of people died due to its use in war. These deaths are irreversible and cannot be brought back.

b. There have been numerous failed experiments that have resulted in no better of an environment previous to the experiment. Ex. Algae blooms and iron.

c. We cannot predict the future, if people had known the consequences of burning fossil fuels, the current global climate change crisis could have been avoided.

d. We have the same amount of knowledge about geo-engineering as we had known about fossil fuels.

2. Human error. Something may start out in the best intention with no negative foreseeable outcomes, but the mistake could result in the deadliest change.

a. Robert Jackson, director of Duke University’s Center on Global Change warns, “Playing with the Earth’s climate is a dangerous game with unclear rules, we need more direct ways to tackle global warming, including energy efficiency, reduced consumption, and investment in renewable energy sources.”

b. One example of negative geo-engineering outcomes is fertilizing the oceans could create great iron-limited phytoplankton populations. When these populations die and sink to the bottom of the ocean, they would use oxygen which could create dead spots in the ocean.

c. Still, geo-engineering does is not a cure-all. Many methods do not resolve all of the issues currently plaguing the planet. Using the false front of geo-engineering as a cure-all will make people feel as if they are resolving the issue, when in fact nothing is being done.

d. On a large scale, many ecologists remain skeptical of geo-engineering solutions. They believe the only way to truly reverse climate change is to cut carbon emissions and create an alternative energy source.

3. Who holds the power to decide on global geoengineering. It’s a worldwide decision. What if a country doesn’t agree or doesn’t think it’s a good idea?

a. Actions could be made in anger to ‘get back’ at other countries.

b. One major disagreement about geo-engineering between powerful countries could lead to WWIII.

c. Countries could cut political ties with one another, and stop any trade, negotiation and communication

d. If a country doesn’t agree, then the matter should be discussed one more time, and voted upon again.

4. Science shows that in tested practices, some of the results are negative.

a. One solution proposed is simulating volcano by adding sulfur to the atmosphere. In an actual volcano in 1991 in Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the earth by 0.9 degrees. However, Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research argued that this would only create temperature difference in small areas and may even destroy atmospheric ozone.

b. Another proposed solution, fertilizing oceans, is believed, by Charles Miller of Oregon State University, to actually create dead spots in the ocean. It also will not move at a rate even close enough to combat raising carbon emissions.

c. Geo-engineering is predicted to continue to destroy the ozone layer, according to Susan Soloman from the Journal of Geophysical Research. Using aerosol products to reflect incoming solar radiation will continue this pattern.

d. Reflecting sunlight, one proposal to reduce the global temperature in response to climate change would be greatly detrimental to solar energy production. Solar energy is a green energy that creates no green house gas.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Are international political implications inevitable if Geo-Engineering is used to fix Earth's problems?

[]

Pro

(First two by Expert: Allen Mainville third by Expert: Dylan Weremeichik)

1. Without cuts to CO2 emissions, Geo-engineering is the last option.
Many experts warn that if CO2 emissions aren't cut drastically, then Geo-engineering will be the last option. If it's the last option, the international implications would be that if nothing is done, the Earth would be doomed, so it is very likely that internationally, Geo-engineering solutions would be accepted widely, since the CO2 levels are still rising. For instance, planting artificial trees that act like a vacuum, sucking the CO2 out of the air, could be one of the solutions that are used internationally.

2. Painting the Roofs of Houses White.
One of the simplest ways to combat the problem is by painting houses white. As we all know, the color white reflects the sun, making more of it bounce away from the houses. This cools the houses and leads to less energy consumption in the winter. There are no negative effects to the climate by painting a roof a different color. If employed in a large enough area, it could reflect enough solar rays to cool the surrounding area a few degrees.

3. The sun
Experts and facts and calculations say that if 2% of the sun's rays were blocked from hitting the earth, it could stop global warming. Many of the methods of Geo-engineering currently support the method of blocking some of the sun.

[]

Con

(first two by expert: colleen, third by expert Danielle) 1. Geoengineering techniques could have serious unintended and detrimental effects on many people and ecosystems
Any effects on the resources necessary to the lives of the population of a country will lead to political strife and controversy. Governments will try to make sure that their people are provided for and well, leaving the issue of CO2 levels on the back burner while they care for the current predicament. Using geoengineering to help forestall global warming so greener policies can be allowed to take hold and be developed, therefore, would be counterproductive since we would be putting our effort and resources into developing geoengineering instead of using that money and brains to get straight to the main problem and find a solution to the heart of the matter.

2. Possibility of devastating long term effects if natural cycles or processes are interrupted or thrown off by geoengineering techniques.
If the balance of nature is upset, it could result in natural disasters such as drought, famine, or extreme weather situations brought on by sudden changes in the composition of the atmosphere. All natural disasters cause disruption in the political system of a country. Money has to be expended to try to minimize the loss of life, research has to be paid for to find out what caused the disaster and what could prevent it from happening in the future, and politicians will have conflicting and ever changing ideas about what should be done and to what extent and who should be doing it. While the government is scrambling to solve these problems, other important issues are pushed aside in its wake, procrastinating in solving them until the current crisis is over.

3. Problems

• It would fix global warming, but won’t complete cure it

• It would affect mother- nature and lead to further greater effects in the long run.

• Once Geo-engineering is started we cannot stop it if it’s not helping the earth in any way, shape, or form

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Climate change: Is geoengineering smart if climate change cannot be stopped?

[]

Pro (expert: Joey Harrington)

- Genetically engineered trees are made to absorbed more carbon[[5]]. These trees can help absorb the extra carbon and help our environment.
- Pump atomized[[6]] seawater into the atmosphere[[7]] to create clouds that block out some sunlight.
- It might get to the point where we have no alternatives and have to resort to geoengineering.
- If geoengineering isn't studied it may be too late to research it when it comes to the point where we need it. This research could save our environment[[8]] and push us to a better future.

[]

Con (expert: AJ Pelland)

• Geoengineering with damage the planet further, instead of making it better. Humans are mostly responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We should let nature do what it does best and right itself instead of taking the initiative and fixing it ourselves. We don’t know what we’re tampering with and we could really damage the planet in a way that can’t be repaired.

• The effects of Geoengineering may not be reversible. We don’t fully know how Geoengineering works yet, so we may need to reverse the effects if it does make the climate worse. If the bad effects of Geoengineering outweigh the good, and we can’t reverse the effects, it can make the climate worse than it already is.

• Of the effects that we do know, we may be making the climate worse. Take the man-made volcano. If you release more sulfur[[9]] into the atmosphere, you increase the chance of acid rain[[10]], which contaminates bodies of water and damages plants. That can really have a bad effect on the ecosystem and may permanently damage the ecosystem’s process of producing oxygen, which would further hurt the environment.

• Even if Geoengineering does work and our carbon emissions[[11]] are lowered, wouldn’t they just rise back up when start to stop the effects of Geoengineering? For Geoengineering to work, we would have to develop new technologies that would keep carbon emissions low and wouldn’t hurt the environment in other ways. This could be very costly and may take a very long time. Some of the effects of Geoengineering can be very damaging to the environment over a long period of time, and will do more damage than good. This will, in turn, cost billions more to fix the environment making it less cost-effective[[12]] as the years go by.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Long-term: Is geoengineering a sufficient long-term solution?

[]

Pro

• Advances in human technology/wealth enable long-term geoengineering. Advances in human technology and wealth can make solutions like geoengineering long-term.

[]

Con

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Risks: Are the risks and unintended consequences of geoengineering tolerable?

[]

Pro

• 1. Experts would be conducting these solutions. With a Geo-engineering solution having such lasting implications, only top scientists and engineers would be dedicated to the task of changing the world in such a radical way.

• 2. Any unintended consequences could easily be dealt with. Even if Geo-engineering projects do yield consequences that can be seen as worse than current conditions, many programs could be be easily canceled.

[]

Con

• 1. Unintended consequences may have dire implications. Some experts suggest that some Geo-engineering projects have the ability to drastically alter the climate. Recently experts have stated that some projects like cloud brightening could change those systems so drastically that parts of the world would stop receiving rain all together.

• 2. The Earths biosphere is unpredictable. The world is a complex place. Humanity so far can barely predict weather patterns, so how can even the most competent scientists be expected to changes systems that they don't even fully understand in a safe manner.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Is it ethical for mankind to alter the natural systems of the Earth?

[]

Pro

[]

Con

• We can't risk something as essential to all life as we know ii as the Earth implementing solutions we don't fully understand. "We need to rethink our actions, not invent new ways to engineer the planet itself. Scientists may never have enough confidence that their theories will predict how well geoengineering systems can work. With so much at stake, there is reason to worry about what we don’t know." - Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers University

• Solving climate change is political, not issue of geoengineering. If global warming is a political problem more than it is a technical problem, it follows that we don’t need geoengineering to solve it.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Geoengineering slowly helped us to enter the global warming that we are in, so can it help us leave it without cost?

[]

Pro

[]

Con

• Expert: Cody Bagley. First: the cost of geoengineering is too over-priced in many of the ideas they have, some of those ideas are, Launching mirrors in to space, or Spraying ocean water into low flying clouds, or putting seeds in to clouds to manipulate the weather, and finally letting sulfer into the air, now all these methods would work and each one would have a down fall, Launching the mirrors would be the most costly, Spraying Ocean water is the least expensive, same with the putting seeds into clouds would be the most cheapest, but manipulating the weather might have odd effects, and letting sulfur into the air would cause acid rain which would hurt the forests, animals, and people alike.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Public interest groups can prevent geoengineering.

[]

Pro

• Will give information and educate the public about the topic of Geo-Engineering (in a through manner)
• Their views on geo-engineering would be better represented because so many people are involved

[]

Con

• It would probably increase costs for the programs to either fight for or against geo-engineering
• There would be unequal representation of certain people on this topic, usually in these groups you either support something or are against it, so only one part of the people’s voice would be heard

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Public opinion has a positive impact on geoengineering.

[]

Pro

• People learn to become aware of what geo-engineering involves and begin to form their opinions
• People begin to come up with solutions to better the situation or grow upon their current ideas on the topic
• People can learn to discover the pros and cons of the issue
• People can get really involved in helping the issue or fighting against it

[]

Con

• Media can get in the way of forming a PERSONAL opinion because they only voice the one side of the story rather than all aspects of it
• People can get a little to involved in “their side” of the issue, right or wrong, and sometimes they can get competitive and even obsessive

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Public opinion has a positive impact on geoengineering.

[]

Pro

• People learn to become aware of what geo-engineering involves and begin to form their opinions
• People begin to come up with solutions to better the situation or grow upon their current ideas on the topic
• People can learn to discover the pros and cons of the issue
• People can get really involved in helping the issue or fighting against it

[]

Con

• Media can get in the way of forming a PERSONAL opinion because they only voice the one side of the story rather than all aspects of it
• People can get a little to involved in “their side” of the issue, right or wrong, and sometimes they can get competitive and even obsessive

[]

[]

[]

[]

Pro/con sources

[]

Pro

[]

Con

See also

External links and resources

Kunzig , Robert . "Geoengineering: How to Cool Earth--At a Price." Scientific American Nov. 2008. Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geoengineering-how-to-cool-earth>.

NERC - Public dialogue on geoengineering." NERC - Homepage. NERC, 11 Dec. 2009. Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering.asp>.

Carlin, Alan. "If Geoengineering Is The Best First Step Towards Global Climate Change Control, How Could It Best Be Implemented?." National Center for Environmental Economics EPA, 2 Jan. 2010. Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/be6bc67216ab9f5d85256e46007b104d/4a45914d9ddbad5985257267007eb7f9!OpenDocument>.

"Geoengineering." What's Next 2008 Ed. Bryan Walsh . Time, 13 Mar. 2008. Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1720049_1720050_1721653,00.html>.

Robock , Alan . "20 Reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May (2008). Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf>.

Assessing the Pros and Cons of Geoengineering to Fight Climate Change — Dukenvironment Magazine." Nicholas School of the Environment. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/dukenvironment/f09/assessing-the-pros-and-cons-of-geoengineering-to-fight-climate-change>.

Demirbas, A. “Biofuels from Agricultural Biomass.” Energy Sources 31.17 (2009): 1573-1582.

Crookes. R.J. “Comparative bio-fuel performance in internal combustion engines.” Biomass & Bioenergy 30 (2006): 461-468.

United States. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2009.” Gross Domestic Product (GDP). (10 December 2009).

John Block, Clayton Yeutter and Mike Espy. "Ethanol: Fueling the Future in Rural America." McClatchy Newspapers 17 Jun 2009: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 02 December 2009.