Post by Bozur on Oct 3, 2008 22:49:16 GMT -5
The RICH could save climate problem
newscientist.com — Here is a worrying thought. Or maybe not. One rich philanthropist could take it into his head to re-engineer the planet's climate. It might only cost a few billion dollars, and even in these days of financial meltdown there are people around with that kind of cash. More… (Environment)
--------
Do we need a 'Gaian dictator' to save the world?
Here is a worrying thought. Or maybe not. One rich philanthropist could take it into his head to re-engineer the planet's climate ( environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn13773-planetary-sunshade-could-strip-ozone-layer-by-76.html ) . It might only cost a few billion dollars, and even in these days of financial meltdown there are people around with that kind of cash.
Dutch Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen recently proposed that, if things went really pear-shaped on climate change, we could start spraying the upper atmosphere with sulphate particles. They would intercept enough solar radiation to cool us down again.
It might be a last resort, but it could prevent us crossing some tipping point to irreversible climate mayhem. And it wouldn't cost the Earth.
Last week, Crutzen was among a group of 40 scientists and engineers who attended a workshop at Wildbad-Kreuth in the Bavarian Alps, to discuss whether the world should be reassured or alarmed by the prospect of this or some other act of planetary engineering ( www.advances.de/pageID_5272692.html ) .
It's not often that Earth-hugging Gaians and grease-stained engineers share a litre or two in the bierkeller. I should declare an interest - I moderated the event.
It was a bit huffy at times. They discussed the ethical issues as much as the technical. Would it work? What would happen if it went wrong? If the sulphate sunshield, as some suggest, destroyed the ozone layer. Should anyone be allowed even to try?
But most seemed to agree that, even if only as a last resort, we need to develop some "ready-to-go" system for cooling us down - whether it was a planetary parasol or a way of soaking up atmospheric CO2 pronto.
But how to control this genie, if it were developed?
Or should we recognise that the genie is long since out of the bottle? After all, our carbon-dioxide emissions are already altering the climate, and nobody asked permission to do that.
Some enthusiasts for geo-engineering - or eco-hacking, as some have taken to calling it - said we might one day have to ignore democratic niceties in order to get the job done.
Others thought the idea of rogue states, or rogue individuals, unilaterally taking on the role of planetary saviour was too alarming to contemplate.
After our current debacle with the financial masters of the universe, do we really want to invent a Gaian führer?
But if global consensus were required, what should we do if the world was sweltering and millions were dying in super-hurricanes, but the Russians turned up at the UN and vetoed action because they quite liked the balmy Siberian summers?
In the end, the meeting decided that the safest option was "rigorous assessment and authorisation by an international governance institution" - a kind of Kyoto protocol with the power to launch mirrors into space or fertilise the ocean's biological pump to suck up CO2.
You may laugh. But seriously, somebody has got to start discussing these possibilities. As a recent report on the subject from Britain's Royal Society made clear, there are more questions than answers right now.
We need to discover what is technically possible and debate what is politically desirable. Or one day we could wake up in the shadow of an ecological big brother that nobody voted for.
Fred Pearce, senior environmental correspondent
www.newscientist.com/