By Robert Bradley Jr.
“There are significant environmental, technical and cost challenges in using carbon dioxide removal (CDR) at the scale needed to significantly reduce global warming…. [that make it] It is unlikely that the CDR can be implemented quickly or on a large enough scale to completely avoid dangerous levels of climate warming in the near term.” (Pro, public mail, February 27, 2023)
“The ability to speculate on future solar geosynthetic risks becomes a powerful argument for industry lobbyists, climate deniers, and some governments to delay projects.” decarbonization policy.” (Child, open letter: January 17, 2022)
It’s hard, contradictory, and hypocritical to be “green” as the usual definition is. I am reminded of a comment in the 1970s that noted “the general frustration created by the energy crisis: every solution to the problem seems to create its own enormous problems.”
The unintended consequences of government intervention are a category unto itself. Climate/energy policy today has created many ecological sins from anyone’s perspective.
Wind and solar create landscape with heavy infrastructure generating power at a fraction of rated capacity. There are well-documented rare earth mining problems. There’s corporate cronyism and programs like carbon capture and storage that are greening taxpayers green. There’s a climate elite flying around at global climate conferences. And most recently, wind turbines built in sensitive areas (homes?) have attracted civil disobedience none other than Greta Thunberg.
There are biomass and biofuel industries that can well produce carbon energy positive. The closed nuclear plants promise to use more fossil fuels, not less. And finally, less abundant, more expensive, and less reliable energy policies have led millions of people to burn wood and manure for their daily bread.
One must wonder, like James Hansen used to dowhether the whole anti-CO2 movement is net positivenot net negative, given the overall emissions.
————————
Geotechnical, one last gasp of the (growing) climate-industrial complex, generated from a climate crisis that is not, is an area of growing ecological stress. And it got a big boost yesterday. ONE open letter “from more than 60 physical and biological scientists studying climate and climate impacts on the role of physical science research, including its central role in effective governance,” introduced as follows:
Given the severity of climate change, scientists and scientific bodies have recommended investigating potential methods to enhance sunlight reflection (or longwave radiation release) from atmosphere, known as “solar irradiance modulation” (SRM), to slow down the climate. warming and reducing climate impacts. In particular, this study is important to understand their potential to respond to climate change rapidly, in order to reduce the risk to humans and ecosystems from projected climate warming. expected to occur over the next few decades while society reduces greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations. in the atmosphere.
Continue, letter
… affirms the importance of conducting responsible research to objectively assess the potential of SRMs to reduce climate risks and impacts, to understand and mitigate risks of SRM approaches and to determine the information needed for administration. Although not addressed in this letter, any decision to actively use SRM needs to be made in advance to address the complex legal, ethical, and political aspects of making that decision.
Of course! Go slow at first. But, according to Milton Friedman, beware of “tyranny of the status quo” when the introduction of a new program (quality change) leads to future debates about how much to increase the budget (quantitative change). The climate-industrial complex is chasing a new perch.
Just say no!
Expect a huge backlash. Last year, Agreement not to use solar geoengineering (SGNUA) went all out against geoengineering. The so-called solar radiation management or regulation (SRM) technology aimed at reducing global temperatures is “artificial interference in our planet’s climate system,” SGNUA stated. [1]
And, it sucks:
The ability to speculate on future solar geoengineering risks becomes a powerful argument for industry lobbyists, climate deniers and some governments to delay policies. decarbonization book.
It To be hardly green.
———————
[1] This is the ‘deep ecology’ view that led John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich to write in the mid-1970s:
[T]this may be little consolation in the idea that man-made warming trends can cancel out natural cooling trends. Since different factors produce two propensities to do so by affecting different parts of the Earth’s complex climate machine, it is almost impossible that the effects are related to these patterns. cycles will cancel each other out.
Source: Ecological Sciences: Population, Resources, Environment (WH Freeman: 1977 [third edition]), P. 686.
Related
