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.
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another