THE SET-UP: Today, the human wrecking ball known as “Lee Zeldin” used the EPA’s in-house studio to address the “urgent and important questions” many “concerned Americans” have “about geoengineering and contrails.”
It appears to be in response to a bevy of “conspiracy theories” about the deadly flooding of the Guadalupe River in Texas and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s a newly-announced push to ban geoengineering. Zeldin said the era of such questions being “belittled” and “dismissed” by the media and government is over. He directed his staff to compile everything we know about these two hot topics … and without a hint of irony said “anyone who reads” the compiled information will “know as much about these topics as I do as EPA Administrator.”
If the EPA’s hastily-compiled “About Geoengineering” page is any indication, Zeldin knows bupkis “as EPA Administrator.” He certainly didn’t know they’re called “chemtrails,” not “contrails.” And his cagey presentation seemed cynically calibrated to reinforce suspicions about geoengineering. It’s almost as cagey as the page he promoted, which doesn’t mention “climate” or “climate change” once. Not a single mention, despite the obvious fact that geoengineering is inexorably linked to climate change … but not as a cause. Instead, it’s a theoretical option for curtailing the changing climate’s effects. Far from proving that climate change is a conspiratorial hoax being seeded in the clouds by nefarious humans pursuing an agenda of social control, geoengineering is a somewhat desperate attempt to slow the all-too real, undeniably human-caused warming that’s fueling extreme weather around the world.
Let’s face it, scientists are looking for something … anything … to remediate the damage caused by mankind’s mindboggling insouciance. We keep on pumping-out climate pollution by the megaton despite seeing, hearing and feeling the real-world, real-time evidence all around us. And that’s why some are entertaining the controversial option of geoengineering the climate. Scientists know it is fraught with peril … and unintended consequences. But they want to know more, because we may ultimately be faced with a choice between the globe-altering end of ocean currents and localized acid rain.
But Zeldin, who has no science background whatsoever, was shoveling some serious bullshit when he implied that Trump’s EPA was somehow standing in the way of attempts to “scale-up” geoengineering. That’s a pernicious piece of deceptive propaganda, and Zeldin knows it. The truth is that many scientists don’t want anything to do with geoengineering and for those who do, they often struggle to launch preliminary experiments, let alone “scale up” costly technologies that have even passed the proof of concept phase.
In fact, a meager “cloud brightening” experiment last year in the San Francisco Bay was so unwelcomed it had to be abandoned.
All that being said, I am no proponent of geoengineering. Facts and context? Yes! Tempting Mother Nature’s Law of Unintended Consequences? No. What’s more, we might be forced to tempt fate because people refuse to own-up to what we’ve have done as a species and, specifically, as Americans? Because we refuse to make even meager sacrifices while folks around the Global South suffer in sacrifice zones where they pay for our hydrocarbon-fuelled sins?
Instead we concoct a mythical plot to control the weather when it’s been us—all of us—who’ve been turning up the thermostat the whole damn time. -jp
TITLE: Saving the planet: what scientists advise to overcome the climate crisis
https://itc.ua/en/articles/saving-the-planet-what-scientists-advise-to-overcome-the-climate-crisis/
EXCERPTS: Geoengineering involves the use of technological solutions to influence the climate in order to reduce the temperature or change the amount of precipitation. In particular, the most well-known of the proposed methods is the spraying of aerosols that will scatter sunlight and reduce further heating of the atmosphere.
Among other things, researchers from University College London recently offered to use large aircraft such as Boeing 777F to inject sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Before that, the option of spraying sulfur dioxide over the tropics at an altitude of about 20 km was already proposed.
However, it turned out that current aircraft will not be able to do this, and it will be necessary to develop completely new ones, which may take many years. Based on the modeling results, the scientists found that injecting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere can reduce the temperature on the planet by 0.6°C.
However, this should be done at an altitude of about 13 km near the poles. Why in the stratosphere? Because in the lower atmosphere, these aerosolized particles will be dispersed by clouds and fall out as rain.
The stratosphere, on the other hand, remains dry and free of clouds, so aerosols can stay there for months, maybe even years, depending on the height from which they are sprayed. Researchers from University College London have calculated that in order to effectively cool the planet, it will be necessary to inject 12 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide per year at an altitude of 13 km in spring and summer. This is for each hemisphere.
However, this approach has significant drawbacks. First, there is the risk of acid rain. On the other hand, no one knows for sure how these aerosol particles will behave in the stratosphere in interaction with other anthropogenic substances and greenhouse gases.
In addition, such artificial cooling of the planet can lead to significant falling yields and provoke a food crisis in many poor and developing countries. If such spraying is carried out exclusively in the Southern Hemisphere, it will provoke an increase in the number of tropical cyclones, and if — only in the Northern Hemisphere — it will reduce the number of tropical cyclones, but will cause record drought in Africa.
According to some estimates, the spraying of sulfate aerosols can lead to unpredictable consequences, including more rapid warming of the world’s oceans. In addition, the large-scale implementation of such a project will require funding in the amount of at least several billion dollars annually for at least 15 consecutive years.
TITLE: Geoengineering could avoid climate tipping points, but not if we delay
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2487346-geoengineering-could-avoid-climate-tipping-points-but-not-if-we-delay/
EXCERPTS: “My conclusion from this is if you’re serious about preventing tipping [points], you need to take solar radiation management seriously, which means researching its potential benefits and its risks,” says Claudia Wieners at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.
Tipping points refer to changes that couldn’t be reversed for many centuries, if at all. They include the slowdown or halting of ocean currents that play a key role in global climate by transporting immense amounts of heat.
One is the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), which carries heat from the tropics to Europe. If it collapses, there could be rapid sea level rise in North America, a severe drop in temperatures in northern Europe and serious disruption to monsoons across Asia.
According to a model used by Wieners’s team, the strength of the AMOC would decline by more than half over the next century in a worst-case emissions scenario. But if stratospheric aerosol injection— a proposed form of geoengineering that involves adding sunlight-reflecting particles to the upper atmosphere using planes, balloons or rockets—were used to keep the global temperature rise at around 1.5°C, the current’s weakening would be greatly reduced, Wieners told the Exeter Climate Conference in the UK last week.
In fact, the AMOC declined less in this scenario than in one with rapid reductions of emissions but no geoengineering. “So, actually, at least for the next 80 years or so, [greenhouse gas] mitigation helps less than stratospheric aerosol injection,” says Wieners.
However, the findings need to be confirmed by many more studies looking at more realistic emissions scenarios, says Wieners – and there are several potential dangers. “You could also really badly mess up,” she says.
For starters, successful geoengineering would require close global cooperation for centuries to come. “You might think of it as the greatest governance challenge that humanity has ever faced,” ethicist Stephen Gardiner from the University of Washington in Seattle said in another talk at the conference.
For instance, if stratospheric aerosol injection was done in one hemisphere only – perhaps because of a lack of a global consensus – it would shift the tropical rainfall zone around the world, warns Wieners.
In a third talk, Jim Haywood at the University of Exeter, UK, discussed how model experiments have shown that, if done in certain parts of the world, another form of geoengineering called marine cloud brightening could trigger a “mega-La Niña” so intense that air pressure changes would lead to higher sea level rise in the Pacific over the next century than from warming itself.
Now we know of the risk, it can be avoided, says Haywood. “You just change your strategy.” But many researchers aren’t confident we can manage the risks of geoengineering.
“Solar radiation management makes it sound like a perfectly manageable thing. Shouldn’t we use the term solar radiation interference?” Stefan Rahmstorf from the University of Potsdam in Germany asked Wieners after her talk.
There is also the risk that geoengineering becomes seen as an alternative to cutting emissions. “It does not address the root cause of climate change,” says Wieners. “It is, at best, symptom fighting, but maybe if the symptoms are too bad, it could be a good addition to the true solution.”
Because of these issues, some climate scientists are opposed to even researching the potential risks and benefits of geoengineering. It is so controversial that at least one conference attendee refused to attend a session focused on geoengineering.
TITLE: Reduce, remove, reflect — the three Rs that could limit global warming
https://theconversation.com/reduce-remove-reflect-the-three-rs-that-could-limit-global-warming-258413
EXCERPTS: Legally binding net zero targets form the basis for national efforts to meet the international goals of limiting global warming to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and ideally to 1.5°C.
These goals, launched in 2015 as part of the UN’s Paris agreement, set the stage for climate action in a warming world. Much like the “reduce-reuse-recycle” sustainability initiative, various climate actions fit within three Rs — reduce, remove and reflect.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is at centre stage. This is non-negotiable. Emissions reduction must be deep, rapid and sustained if we are to limit global warming to less than 2°C. These drastic cuts demand an ensemble cast, players from all sectors, from energy to agriculture. The energy to power modern society accounts for almost 75% of our greenhouse gas emissions.
We need a prop change at centre stage: an energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables. This requires electrification and energy efficiency measures — both are central to managing the growth in energy demand sustainably.
At stage right, greenhouse gas removal offers a supporting role by removing historical emissions and offsetting residual emissions from sectors lagging behind in the energy transition (such as shipping and aviation). A number of academics have stressed that a range of removal methods is required to achieve net zero emissions and halt the rise in global temperature.
Sunlight reflection methods have been in the wings on stage left. In the context of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, they have been considered feasible in theory, but fraught with challenges in practice. As the chance of exceeding 1.5°C in the coming years increases, this form of climate intervention needs further consideration. Experts brought together by the UN Environment Programme have concluded that, although this intervention is “not a substitute for mitigation”, it is “the only option that could cool the planet within years”.
The most studied methods to reflect sunlight are called stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. These methods mimic natural processes that cool the earth by reflecting sunlight, be it through the release of reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere, or the addition of droplet-forming salt crystals into marine clouds in the lower atmosphere.
Sunlight reflection methods pose immense challenges with respect to research, ethics and governance. There are many scientific uncertainties about how these interventions will influence the climate. There is also no global regulatory framework in place. Any legislation needs to be based on scientific evidence and informed decisions.
Meeting climate goals requires an ensemble cast performing actions across the warming world stage. Emissions reduction is indispensable and should remain centre stage in climate policy. Climate interventions at stage right and left — in the form of greenhouse gas removal and sunlight reflection — need responsible and responsive direction. Their risks and benefits need to be assessed.
Before curtains are drawn, let’s make sure every climate action — reduce, remove and reflect — gets a fair hearing.