‘Plan B’ for a Low-Carbon Economy?

by Bill Chameides | February 1st, 2011
posted by Erica Rowell (Editor)

Permalink | 5 comments

Crossposted with National Geographic’s Great Energy Challenge Blog.

Putting the “geo” in engineering could screw up the “geo” in politics.

‘Plan A’ Still on the Table

Scientists have warned for decades that our dependence on fossil fuels is the root cause of global warming and to slow the warming we’ll need to wean ourselves off them and ramp up low-carbon technologies.

Flash forward to 2011. Fossil fuels are still king and the last 10 years have been the warmest on record. If a low-carbon economy is slowly emerging, it’s too small and nascent to count on now. What’s to be done? For some, the answer is Plan B.

‘Plan B’: Geoengineering

Instead of treating the root cause of global warming — emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases — Plan B aims to treat the symptoms by “engineering” the climate system to offset the emissions-fueled warming.

Those who consider geoengineering a preferable alternative to a low-carbon economy argue costs would be lower and the “cure” less disruptive. Others view it as more of a “fail safe” system — not on par with lowering greenhouse gas emissions but a last resort if emissions reductions fail to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Beware Unintended Consequences

In a classic commercial from the 1970s a daisy-wreathed woman clad in white, furious at being tricked into thinking margarine was butter, unleashes lightning and thunder, proclaiming, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” Could geoengineering prompt a similarly destructive response? After all, when you start fiddling with a complex system, it’s awfully hard to be sure what’s going to happen.

Yet, never wont to turn away from a challenge, scientists have taken up the mantle and are trying to suss what might happen should humanity resort to engineering our climate. Case in point: the journal Atmospheric Science Letters is now devoting a special section to the topic.

Offset Warming With Stratospheric Sulfur Injections

One scheme, discussed in the five journal papers out so far, is arguably the most viable under discussion. First proposed back in the 1970s, it involves injecting sulfur gas (e.g., sulfur dioxide) into the stratosphere where it will be chemically converted into small sulfate particles or aerosols. These particles will reflect sunlight back to space, cooling the planet and presumably offsetting the warming. Early calculations indicate that implementation would be relatively inexpensive — for several billion dollars a year, some argue, why not just do it?

One reason is the slippery slope to addiction. Once we start offsetting greenhouse warming using sulfate aerosols, we’re going to have to keep at it until we rid the atmosphere of excess greenhouse gases. How long is that? Maybe 1,000 years. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise (a real possibility, given all our coal and natural gas reserves), we will have to inject ever-larger amounts. And unfortunately, as Ulrike Niemeier et al of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology report, we will likely face a case of diminishing returns — the more sulfur we inject, the less effective, pound-for-sulfur-pound, the cooling effect.

Then there are the so-called unintended consequences. Reflecting sunlight back to space from the stratosphere changes how much solar energy reaches the Earth’s surface and that in turn can play all kinds of mischief with the weather. For example, Peter Braesicke of the University of Cambridge and colleagues report that enhanced stratospheric concentrations of sulfate particles may deplete the ozone layer and alter the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, which plays such a huge role in influencing rainfall globally.

Environmental Concern Plus Geopolitical Landmine

And mucking with weather and more specifically with people’s water supply is where things get a little sticky from a geopolitical perspective.

The Unilateral Scenario: Nations’ going it alone is potentially the most explosive scenario. For example, suppose a few decades from now India finds the melting of the Himalayan glaciers untenable, and tries to prevent further melting by injecting sulfur into the stratosphere. And suppose in the years following, China experiences devastating droughts that it blames (rightly or wrongly) on India’s sulfur injections. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that China could declare India’s geoengineering an act of war. Now imagine what if China were the geoengineer and the United States the country experiencing droughts or (and it could happen) vice versa.

International Regime: Clearly the unilateral approach is a non-starter. If we are to consider geoengineering, we’d better get busy setting up an international regime to determine:

  • How to decide when it’s time to start geoengineering,
  • How to decide if our tinkering is working,
  • How to decide if a nation is being harmed by geoengineering and what to do if it is, and
  • What to do if a nation becomes a rogue geoengineer.

No easy answers, but if geoengineering is in our future, we’d better get those geopolitical (and scientific) answers soon.

filed under: carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, coal, drought, El Nino-Southern Oscillation, energy, faculty, fossil fuels, global warming, international, natural gas, science, water, weather
and: , , , , , , , , , ,


All comments are moderated and limited to 275 words. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Read our Comment Guidelines for more details.

  1. Ken Towe
    Feb 3, 2011

    CLIMATE CHANGE “Despite all available evidence, and the warnings from experts, and the obvious peril of a world rushing to acquire nuclear weapons as famine nears, our political leaders are reluctant to act. Like children they wait for the toothache to go away and take comfort in those who advise that nothing need be done. But part of maturity is the willingness to face problems squarely, openly, honestly, and if our world is to survive we must demand such maturity from our leaders. We cannot continue as if nothing were wrong. To do so might prove both homicidal and, eventually, suicidal.” Not 2011 but 1976… Lowell Ponte, 35 years ago. 1970s. Dam the Bering Strait! Blacken the polar ice caps! Cloud-seed the trade winds! Fortunately, and with a similar wringing-of-hands as is prevalent today, the world did the right thing. None of the geoengineering suggested in the 70s was done to head off the cooling climate, the observed 0.5°C drop in northern hemisphere temperature from the late 30s to 1975. Are the computer models really that good? Is the science today that settled? That certain? Do we really want to geoengineer potentially irreversible changes in the opposite direction today? If it is, and we do, it BETTER be!

  2. Jim
    Feb 2, 2011

    If you keep reflecting more sunlight then at some point it will become more difficult for some plants and crops to grow. Also, it still doesn’t solve the problem of ocean acidification. Joshua’s comment about CDR or perhaps CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) from the atmosphere might work better, but there are issues with this as well.

    • Bill Chameides
      Feb 21, 2011

      Jim, you are correct.

  3. Ken Towe
    Feb 2, 2011

    Sulfates are a really bad idea….unless, of course, we can (a) accurately predict volcanic activity, (b) are unconcerned about stratospheric ozone, and (c) can be confident that the current warming, like that in the past, will not reverse itself. From WMO 2006 Ozone Assessment, Q and A… “Large volcanic eruptions inject sulfur gases directly into the stratosphere, causing new sulfate particles to be formed. The particles initially form in the stratosphere above and downwind of the volcano location and then often spread throughout the hemisphere or globally as air is transported by stratospheric winds.” “The lowest ozone values in recent years occurred following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which increased the number of sulfur-containing particles in the stratosphere. The particles remain in the stratosphere for several years, increasing the effectiveness of reactive halogen gases in destroying ozone” “If large volcanic eruptions occur in these early decades, ozone depletion will increase for several years. If an eruption larger than Mt. Pinatubo occurs, ozone losses could be larger than previously observed and persist longer.”

  4. Joshua Horton
    Feb 2, 2011

    Some of these assertions and conclusions need to be reconsidered: 1. There is a second class of geoengineering techniques known as carbon dioxide removal (CDR) that would treat “the root cause of global warming.” 2. Most supporters of geoengineering research view it as a complement to mitigation, not an alternative. 3. Careful analysis of geoengineering, specifically stratospheric aerosol injections, shows that unilateral deployment is very unlikely, not least because it can be easily countered. 4. The proper comparison is not between the present and a future geoengineered world, but between warmer future worlds with and without geoengineering.

©2015 Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University | Box 90328 | Durham, NC 27708
how to contact us > | login to the site > | site disclaimers >

footer nav stuff