However impressive someone is, however many excellent and entertaining books they might have sold, never believe anyone who tells you there might be a quick fix to global warming.
It’s hard to deny that Steven Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago, and the journalist Stephen Dubner know a thing or two about applying economics to unlikely situations. In their latest book, Superfreakonomics, the pair take on global warming and argue that technology is our best bet in dealing with it.
Specifically, they get excited about floating hoses that can shoot aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect away sunlight, cooling the Earth by a few degrees.
Where the former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern has calculated the penalty of not dealing with a warming world through fiscal and political policies — and in the process changed the priority the political world gave to the issue — Levitt and Dubner have focused their economic nous on human behavior. In short, why try to persuade billions of people around the world to change their behavior, when you could easily persuade a few thousand to knock up a device to deal with it all? Even shorter: let’s try geo-engineering.
Geo-engineering is a set of technologies designed for use on a global scale to prevent or slow climate change. It includes everything from sending mirrors into space to reflect away sunlight, to dumping iron into the oceans to encourage the growth of carbon-dioxide-consuming algae. It was once seen as the preserve of the wacky, but in recent years its supporters have swelled in number to include scores of climate scientists and engineers. The coalition is messy, with a wide variety of opinion on the best techniques and even the merits of using technology to tackle global warming; if there is any consensus emerging, it is simply that it would be good idea to have some big ideas in reserve, a Plan B, in case nothing comes of appeals to personal abstinence and global political will.
This was the conclusion of a report published last month by the Royal Society. The most comprehensive study on the subject to date, it called for urgent investment to test some of the options.
But the report’s chair, John Shepherd of the University of Southampton, said that neither he nor the working group advocated geo-engineering.
“Our opinions range from cautious consent to very serious skepticism about these ideas. It is not an alternative to emissions reductions and cannot provide an easy quick fix,” he said.
Levitt and Dubner, meanwhile, seem most interested in the work of Nathan Myhrvold, a former chief technology officer at Microsoft. He has set up a company, Intellectual Ventures, that is looking at lifting a 29km hose into the stratosphere with helium balloons. By pumping sulfur dioxide particles into this region, at a cost of around US$20 million, the company thinks it could reflect some sunlight away from the Earth’s surface.
“The theory behind it is an attempt to mimic what happens with very large volcanoes that inject material into the stratosphere,” said Naomi Vaughan, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
“These are volcanoes that occur near the tropics and the clear example that everyone looks at is Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in June 1991,” she said.
Pinatubo, in the Phillipines, threw 10 million tonnes of sulfate particles into the atmosphere as it erupted, lowering global temperatures by 0.5oC the following year. As for how much sulfur aerosol would be needed to achieve the effect artificially, estimates range from 1.5 million to 5 million tonnes. That’s to offset the warming from a doubling of current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Power plants produce and pour between 35 million and 40 million tonnes of sulfur compounds a year into the troposphere (from the ground to 18km up).
“A number of factors inform this range of estimates,” Vaughan said. “A key one is particle size: the smaller the particle size the less mass of sulfur is needed, but if the particles are too small they can ‘glob’ together and fall out of the stratosphere quicker.” Injections would have to be replenished every two to three years.
Earlier this year, Vaughan published a paper with UEA colleague Tim Lenton in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, comparing different schemes to cool the Earth. They concluded that stratospheric aerosols had by far the greatest potential to combat warming in the timescale to 2050, given their relatively low cost and high efficiency.
But they also raised several concerns. Aside from unpredictable changes in the amount and pattern of global rainfall, stratospheric aerosols would slow the recovery of the ozone layer.
Perhaps the biggest issue, however, is that this kind of “solar radiation management” does not do anything to tackle the culprit behind global warming: carbon dioxide. Such techniques — other proposals include throwing salt water into the air to enhance cloud cover and painting roofs white to reflect away sunlight — mask the core problem rather than permanently dealing with it. And they would need to be in place for ever.
“As soon as you stop any type of solar radiation management, the rate of warming is extremely fast — the system readjusts,” says Vaughan. “Rather than having steady warming as our carbon dioxide levels go up, if you bring the intervention in so the world cools, and then stop it 20 years down the line, you get a rapid warming back up to the level that it would have been if you’d never had that intervention.”
So, as well as solar radiation management, geo-engineers would need to come up with ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There are good ideas for how to do this. Some suggest stimulating algae in the oceans could sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide, while Klaus Lackner at Columbia University wants to build huge “artificial trees” to directly suck carbon dioxide from the air. But all are complex to engineer.
Stratospheric aerosols are easier — but making a 29km hose defy gravity still won’t be simple.
“I think they’re going to do it by having 100 balloons lifting it up or something,” says John Loughhead, executive director of the UK Energy Research Centre. “We shouldn’t underestimate how difficult it will be to get that up there.”
“What they put forward as a possible way needs an enormous amount of work to see if it can be done practically,” he said.
Loughhead doesn’t discount the effort but he warns against the temptation to focus attention on just one technology.
“The problem that we face with climate and carbon is of such a scale and in a system of such complexity that to believe anything will be a silver bullet is naive. We need to explore all the possible routes because they will all advantages and disadvantages and we will probably have to apply them all in some way ultimately to get to where we want to be,” he said.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS