The last time the atmosphere held as much carbon dioxide as it does today was about 3 million years ago — a time when sea levels were 10m to 30m higher than they are now. Climate models have long struggled to duplicate those large fluctuations in sea levels — until now. Indeed, for the first time, a high-quality model of Antarctic ice and climate has been able to simulate these large swings. That is smart science, but it brings devastating news.
The new model shows that melting in Antarctica alone could increase global sea levels by as much as 1m by the end of this century — well above prior estimates. Worse, it suggests that even extraordinary success at cutting emissions would not save the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, locking in eventual sea-level increases of more than 5m. As little as 1m could put entire cities at risk, from Miami to Mumbai, and cause enormous economic disruption.
We need to turn down the heat — and fast. To this end, albedo modification — a kind of geoengineering intended to cool the planet by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere — holds tremendous promise.
For example, injecting synthetic aerosols that reflect sunlight into the stratosphere could help to counter the warming caused by greenhouse gases. The mechanism is similar to wearing a white shirt in the summer: White reflects sunlight and cools what is underneath, whereas darker colors absorb sunlight and heat.
To be sure, even in the best-case scenario, solar geoengineering alone could not stabilize the world’s climate. For that, we must both stop pumping carbon pollution into the atmosphere and learn how to remove what is already there. That is why emissions cuts should receive the lion’s share of resources devoted to combating climate change.
However, as the recent study shows, emissions cuts alone cannot save the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and prevent a drastic sea-level rise. However, if they are pursued in conjunction with moderate albedo modification, there is a chance of halting rising temperatures, helping to keep the world under 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels, the more ambitious target agreed at the Paris climate talks in December last year.
It should be noted that, given carbon-cycle feedbacks, such as the thawing of permafrost, there is a chance that the world would face a 1.5oC rise, even if emissions were eliminated today.
Most of the world’s state-of-the-art climate models have explored albedo modification, and each of them has found that the process does have the potential to mitigate climate change. Beyond limiting total warming, it can help to check the rise in peak temperatures, decreasing the risk of destructive heat waves. And it seems to be particularly effective at reducing extreme rainfall, which holds profound implications for minimizing flood damage.
Albedo modification remains uncertain and risky, owing partly to a dearth of organized research into the subject. And, in fact, albedo modification would undoubtedly make some things worse. However, there is not a single climate model run that shows that a moderate intervention would make any region worse off overall. Moreover, the large potential upside, measured in trillions of US dollars, contrasts with low direct costs — in the single-digit billions for full-scale deployment. In fact, albedo modification is so cheap that direct costs will not be the deciding issue. Instead, it is a risk-risk trade-off — one that will require more research to assess.
Given the lack of knowledge, no sensible person would push for deploying albedo modification today. However, it would make no sense to ignore its potential. After all, no one would argue that we should abandon research on a promising cancer drug because it is unproven.
The US National Academy of Sciences first called attention to what it then-described as “climate modification” in a 1983 report.
It recommended careful research in 1992 and again last year.
Major environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, support careful, small-scale research. Yet no such program exists.
One reason for this is concern about the diversion of resources from other approaches. And, of course, there are trade-offs. However, the US, for example, has an annual climate science budget of about US$3 billion. An exploratory solar geoengineering program costing only a few tens of millions of dollars per year is entirely feasible.
A larger obstacle to progress is fear that more attention to geoengineering solutions would sap motivation to cut emissions. Maybe so, but it would be barking mad to take up smoking simply because an experimental cancer treatment showed some promise on a lab rat. And, in fact, it is conceivable that a concerted effort to advance research on albedo modification could spur action to cut emissions, much like a graphic look at the side effects of chemotherapy prompts some to stop smoking.
Whichever reaction prevails, the moral imperative to explore a technology that can protect the poorest and most vulnerable this century would seem to trump amorphous concerns that doing so could weaken the incentive to pursue solutions that would largely benefit future generations.
China has initiated a limited research program on albedo modification. The US has not. Given that albedo modification is the kind of technology that necessitates an open, transparent and international research effort — precisely the kind of effort in which the US excels — this is a serious failing.
The US government should take the lead now in researching albedo modification. Even if the result was that albedo modification does not work, the dividends of such research would be enormous, owing to the added pressure to cut emissions. And if it turned out to be successful, the social, environmental and economic returns would be tremendous.
David Keith is a climate scientist and professor of applied physics at Harvard University’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. Gernot Wagner is an economist and research associate at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations