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).
RSS