WASHINGTON, April 8, 2009
"Geoengineering" To Fight Global Warming?
Radical Approaches Being Considered, Obama's Science Adviser Says In First Interview
-
-
Receding glacial ice in Greenland.President Obama's science adviser John Holdren said the U.S. has not ruled out using "geoengineering" to stem global warming, though it remains a last resort. (Extreme Ice Survey)
-
John Holdren talks about his role as President Obama's science adviser during an interview with The Associated Press, in Washington, Wednesday, April 8, 2009. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
-
-
Play CBS Video Video Global Warming Heats Up Using the Arctic as an early warning system, scientists are claiming the amount of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide is higher than predicted. Daniel Sieberg reports.
-
Interactive Global Warming The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
-
Photo Essay Lights Out Landmarks across Europe go dark to call attention to climate change
That's because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month.
The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.
Using such an experimental measure is only being thought of as a last resort, Holdren said.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."
His concern is that the United States and other nations won't slow global warming fast enough and that several "tipping points" could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
He and many experts believe that warming of a few degrees more would lead to disastrous drought conditions and food shortages in some regions, rising seas and more powerful coastal storms in others.
At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.
"We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge."
Holdren said discussions include Cabinet officials and heads of sub-Cabinet level agencies, such as NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The 65-year-old physicist is far from alone in taking geoengineering seriously. The National Academy of Sciences is making it the subject of the first workshop in its new climate challenges program for policymakers, scientists and the public. The British Parliament has also discussed the idea. At an international meeting of climate scientists last month in Copenhagen, 15 talks dealt with different aspects of geoengineering.
The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."
Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.
Holdren, a 1981 winner of a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant, outlined these possible geoengineering options:
The first approach would "try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," Holdren said.
But he said there could be grave side effects. Studies suggest that might include eating away a large chunk of the ozone layer above the poles and causing the Mediterranean and the Mideast to be much drier.
And those are just the predicted problems. Scientists say they worry about side effects that they don't anticipate.
Fast Fact
While the idea could strike some people as too risky, the Obama administration could get unusual support on the idea from groups that have often denied the harm of global warming in the past.
Using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.
The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has its own geoengineering project, saying it could be "feasible and cost-effective." And Cato Institute scholar Jerry Taylor said Wednesday: "Very few people would rule out geoengineering on its face."
Holdren didn't spell out under what circumstances such extreme measures might ever be called for. And he emphasized they are not something to rely on.
"It would be preferable by far," he said, "to solve this problem by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases."
Yet there is already significant opposition building to the House Democratic leaders' bill aimed at achieving President Barack Obama's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.
Holdren said temperatures should be kept from rising more than 3.6 degrees. To get there, he said the U.S. and other industrial nations have to begin permanent dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide pollution by 2015, with developing countries following suit within a decade.
Those efforts are racing against three tipping points he cited: Earth could be as close as six years away from the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, he said, and that has the potential of altering the climate in unforeseen ways. Other elements that could dramatically speed up climate change include the release of frozen methane from thawing permafrost in Siberia, and more and bigger wildfires worldwide.
The trouble is that no one knows when these things are coming, he said.
Holdren also addressed other topics during the interview:
The administration will "rebalance NASA's programs so that we have in space exploration, a suitable mix of manned activities and robotic activities," Holdren said. Doing that "will only get under way in earnest when a new administrator is in place."
Holdren, who advises the president on such decisions, said he hopes Obama will pick a new NASA boss soon.
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From SciTech
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 39 CommentsSo? Do you suggest they build alternative earths to run experiments? Are you nuts? For better or worse, computer models are about the only way to make climate predictions. Moreover, these models are steadily improving as computers become more powerful, and as they are adjusted to take into account the successes and failures of their predictions and retrodictions. Anyone who would fudge their model to get desired results would be committing professional suicide--they would be anathema in the scientific community. That's part of the reason the oil company shills are not trusted.
Yes, because we were putting enormous amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere. Scientists in 1970 knew that aerosols were cooling the earth while CO2 was warming it. The only question was which would dominate. As aerosol production has been reduced and CO2 increased since then, the balance has tipped firmly towards warming. This, btw, is exactly the scenario considered most likely back then (although everyone knew enough to hedge their bets until more data came in).
This whole global warming theory is based on the greenhouse effect and exists only in computer models, which are terribly innacurate.
virtually EVERY climate prediction or research study you read comes from a computer model simulation (its always stated in the report itself). This sure give scientists a lot of power for propaganda. They can create any future scenario they want. And being that they are getting $$$ to do their research, expect dramatic results with whatever they are working on.
It is foolish to take drastic and dramatic action before you know what action to take.
Scientists are debating the man made theory now more than ever. Pointless to going extremes fighting this knowing that it can all be for not...
In the 1970's in the heat of polution, scientist's said the world was getting "colder"
The wanted to place dust in the upper atmosphere to slow Golobol cooling.
They were nuts then.
They are nusts now.
It's all about follow the grant $$$
The hypocrisy is well noted!
There are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who oppose man-made global warming on this planet, yet their voices are being silenced by the Liberal dictatorship media and Obama regime!
Posted by hakori at 2:21 PM : Apr 9, 2009
Stop yer shrill screeching, woman! hetup-2009 was being funny, mimicking you "sky is falling" AGW pushers. Remove what we already put up there? That's not a totally bad idea, though I question its practicality. The so-called artificial tree idea (like a giant Ionic Breeze machine) isn't what most people on here are worrying about, though. The thing that bothers me and many others is the idea about shooting sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere. That is quite possibly more dangerous that any climate change we are seeing now, natural or otherwise. Pollution to fight pollution...the more I think about it, the more ludicrous it sounds. Anyway, we should just stop screwing around and leave nature to its own devices. The climate will change, just as it has done for 4 billion years or so. Species will adapt or die, including humans. Start try to alter this simple fact of nature and you will wind up causing a global disaster the likes of which we cannot even concieve. You want to turn Earth into a lifeless rock? Then go ahead and start tinkering with our atmosphere. Otherwise, shut up and start backing alternative energy for the right reasons which have nothing to do with the climate.
-- Posted by gold_standard
WE have changed the earth's temperature to be warmer.
It is up to US to UNDO the DAMAGE that WE have inflicted.
From an ethical standpoint, how does engineering global cooling differ from causing global warming? Changing the earth's environment to be warmer or cooler sounds like the same ethical intervention to me.
Call your congressmen today.
I believe you're wrong. Hydroelectric Dams produce at least 10% of our electric power. Nuclear is WAY over 4% (its 90% in France).
A 200 mile by 200 mile stretch of Arizona desert, turned over to solar thermal (parabolic mirrors and pipes of molten salt), generates enough power to power the entire U.S., with no other power source required. Parabolic mirrors can be constructed of silverized teflon balloon material stretched over a fiberglass backing structure.
The Pickens Plan is to plant windmills in the Central U.S., the power generated is enough to replace all foreign oil use in the U.S. (for gasoline, use natural gas).
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 39 Comments