Tinkering with Geoengineering: more consideration as scientists seek answers to climate change

Geoengineering is in the news again. USA Today ran an article that summarized some of the latest proposed geoengineering concepts. Each appears to have its pros and cons - like the side effects of any medication - but with scientists continuing to document the impact of CO2 emissions and the overall climate change effect it produces, geoengineering is getting more and more attention as a concept that must be seriously considered now rather than later.

RTSea Blog ran two posts on the subject in 2009, and the concerns over the side effects of geoengineering expressed then by scientists still exist today.

• Geoengineering: big ideas to change the planet
• Geoengineering: changing the earth's climate for better or worse?

Says Scott Barrett, environmental economist, "We're moving into a different kind of world. Better we turn to asking if 'geoengineering' could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity."

Geoengineering is the process where global steps are taken to counter the effects of global warming, as opposed to addressing the source of the problem - like treating a disease symptomatically. It has been said that geoengineering is not the "silver bullet" solution but may have to be considered along with other measures aimed at the root of our global warming problem, that of excessive CO2 emissions (which, ironically, is a geoengineering process unto itself).

Many of the proposals seem petty grandiose or something right out of a science fiction novel but, in most cases, the technology is there; it will need international cooperation to ramp it up to a global scale. Here are a few of the latest proposed techniques listed by USA Today:

•Ocean fertilization. Dumping iron filings into the ocean to spur phytoplankton blooms is the saltwater version of forestation. The increased mass of the plankton's cells would swell with carbon pulled from the air. On the downside, it may kill fish, belch out other greenhouse gases such as methane, and hasn't worked very well in small trials. [Also mentioned in my prior posts.]

•Forestation. Intense planting of trees and reclaiming deserts with hardier plants is one of the ideas endorsed at the recent Cancun, Mexico, climate meeting, where representatives of 192 nations made some progress on an international climate agreement. More fantastic versions, endorsed by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, would rely on genetic engineering to produce trees that act as natural carbon scrubbers, their trunks swollen with carbon pulled from the air.

•Cloud engineering. Painting rooftops white, genetically engineering crops to have shinier surfaces, and floating blocks of white Styrofoam in the oceans are all proposals to mimic the effects of clouds, whose white surfaces reflect sunlight. Pumping sea salt into the sky from thousands of "spray ships" could increase clouds themselves. Cost-effectiveness aside, such cloud-seeding might end up dumping rain on the ocean or already soggy regions, instead of where it's needed.

•Pinatubo a-go-go. As mentioned above, sulfur aerosols could be fired into the sky by cannons, released by balloons or dropped from planes. [Also mentioned in my prior posts]

•Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point between the sun and Earth could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about 1.4 degrees.

Just as CO2 emissions and rising overall world temperatures disrupt currents, winds and other weather patterns, thereby producing more storms, droughts, and even cold spells in some parts of the world; counteracting global warming through geoengineering can do the same. In fact, it can have political or national security implications: what if one nation has the means to manipulate geoengineering so that it could produce droughts or alter storm tracks in another part of the world? Now there's something that seems right out of a DC/Marvel comic book.

While "most of the technologies are not yet proven and are at the theoretical or research phase," according to an August Congressional Research Service report, geoengineering is slowly gaining acceptance as a viable approach worth pursuing. "I think it is settled that some climate engineering research will go forward," says Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch. "We haven't seen it enter the national debate yet. Hard to know what will happen when it does. That may be the biggest question."

Read the article in USA Today.

Geoengineering: changing the earth's climate for better or worse?

Geoengineering - this is a concept that we will be hearing more and more about with regards to managing climate change. It doesn't necessarily involve us on a personal level, like buying fluorescent light bulbs or driving more fuel-efficient cars; this is large-scale proactive approaches where science and commerce are utilized to directly counter the effects of climate change and CO2 emissions rather than deal with root causes.

Basically, we are talking about taking the CO2 we have in the atmosphere and finding some other place to park it, often referred to as CO2 sequestration. There have been proposals to store it underground while others have focused on methods of increasing absorption by the oceans where it is stored at deep depths.

I was reading several reports on ocean sequestration and there are many techniques that have been studied and even experimented with on a small scale. The results and/or recommendations have been conflicting - in part due to the fact that none of this has been undertaken on a large, truly global scale so we are walking into unknown territory with only projections and theories to guide us. Here are some of the current concepts regarding ocean CO2 sequestration:

Ocean Fertilization: Using the addition of iron particles to induce greater phytoplankton blooms which will, as part of their normal biological process, consume more CO2 and then sink to the ocean bottom. Some scientists say this is a viable approach, others say that the results are not substantial enough compared to the costs and related effects that would impact the ocean ecosystem.

Ocean Nourishment: A variation on ocean fertilization wherein additional nutrients are added to the process that could enhance the growth of feeder fish populations, thereby providing additional benefits with an increased food source and potential commercial value to developing countries.

Alkalinity Change: A land-based process where a CO2 source is combined with limestone and sea water. Basically the reaction alters the pH level and binds the CO2 to the sea water, which is then discharged back into the ocean. The use of limestone, which introduces calcium carbonate, is expected to neutralize acidification and therefore have minimal impact on the marine ecology.

Direct Injection: When ocean sequestration is discussed, the storage of CO2 is to take place at great depths where CO2 actually forms a liquid more dense than seawater (below 3000 meters). There are proposals for direct injection that involve piping CO2 directly from sources like industrial plants or energy refineries into the ocean depths where it is trapped at depth, forming a kind of deep sea lake of near-solid CO2.

These are techniques that are currently being experimented with, but whether they ultimately prove to be physically or financially practical on a large scale remains to be seen. And what of the unforeseen ecological implications? Attitudes range and proposals are hotly debated within the scientific community. There are those that say that geoengineering represents "doing something rather than nothing" with the current and future volume of CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of what preventive steps are taken. (Remember the Carbon Bathtub analogy I cited earlier this week? Even if we radically cut back on CO2 emissions, we will have excess amounts in the atmosphere to deal with for centuries.)

Geoengineering is not a silver bullet solution nor does it free us from addressing the ongoing sources of CO2 emissions. At best it could work in concert with CO2 reduction strategies, but it is technology that is new with unforeseen consequences and perhaps must operate on unimaginable scales worldwide. However, it may find its place because we don't have a choice.

Geoengineering: big ideas to change the planet

I was reading through several scientific articles on geoengineering. Lots of big words and science jargon to stumble over, but I found it both fascinating and a bit alarming.

In a nutshell, geoengineering is the use of techniques and/or processes that alter some of the normal geological processes that nature has devised. As it relates to climate change, this is different than taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions (which we should continue to do regardless). Instead or in addition to, the attempt is made to counteract the ecosystem's reaction to the various influences that contribute to climate change. It's a bit like taking medicine to treat symptoms as opposed to preventive medicine - like taking a cold medication to alter your body functions to hopefully better fight the cold (symptomatic) as opposed to staying warm and eating right to avoid getting the cold in the first place (preventative).

Some of the approaches being considered range from seeding the stratosphere with certain sulfate aerosols that will counteract the global temperature change, or using seawater particles to seed maritime clouds which would "scrub" more heat-generating CO2 out of the atmosphere, to fertilizing select areas of the ocean with iron that would stimulate phytoplankton blooms which would capture and retain more CO2.

These are all very ambitious and large-scale concepts, but some scientists feel that this is what will be needed. There are those who feel that the global ecosystem has been pushed beyond its self-regulating capabilities to maintain the current status quo and will shift to a new status quo that will have drastic implications for life on this planet - and that this new condition will last for centuries or longer regardless of our immediate success in reducing greenhouse gases. Therefore, geoengineering is needed to either possibly prevent the shift or alter the effects of the new shift.

On the one hand, it all sounds very fascinating and illustrates some of the necessary forward-thinking that we need from our scientific community. But at the same time, the research is very new, does not have much baseline scientific study or modeling behind it, and there are a host of possible or unforeseen complications - just like the side effects of any medication.

It's interesting to read about but alarming to think that we have gotten ourselves to a point where such grandiose solutions must be considered.