
A Radical New Scheme to Prevent Catastrophic Sea-Level Rise - chr1
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/a-new-geo-engineering-proposal-to-stop-sea-level-rise/550214/?single_page=true
======
nine_k
In short: the proposal to build loose walls that prevent warm ocean water from
coming close to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This will slow down
their melting enough so they won't produce the enormous icebergs at a fast
rate any more.

Unlike many global geo-engineering projects to prevent global warming, this
one looks somehow realistic.

~~~
w-ll
Any estimation on the co2 output building said walls and surrounding Greenland
and Antarctic with them. What about animals the navigate through these waters.
This just doesn't seem like a well thought idea to me.

~~~
King-Aaron
> What about animals the navigate through these waters

This is going to sound mighty unpopular - it already does to me while I try to
formulate the right way to say this in my head...

But at what point do we need to conclude that saving the nearly 8-billion
human beings and the overall habitability of the Earth is of greater
importance than certain animals living in individual biomes?

I know it's not the contemporary, popular thing to think about. But if the
alternative is the mass displacement and deaths of humans, it feels like it's
something we're going to have to make a decision on.

~~~
phs318u
Well, I can sympathise with the “this is going to be unpopular but...” cos
that’s where I’m going too, though a bit different to you.

A very large number of human beings, even among those that accept the science
of climate change and it’s likely consequences, have proven remarkably
resistant to ANY persuasion to voluntarily moderate their lifestyles even a
little to make the kind of changes that, if they were made en-masse, could
mitigate the worst impacts. They are even MORE resistant to even mild attempts
to impose change by way of a carbon pricing mechanism. God forbid I may have
to pay 5% more for certain goods, or that I should sacrifice one of my SUVs.

My main gripe therefore with these geoengineering proposals is twofold.

1\. On what planet where we we’re not willing to pay even a modest price on
carbon, are we going to be willing to pay trillions for geoengineering
projects?

2\. Geoengineering is yet another reflection of that innate human desire to
externalise costs as much as possible. Whether that be the cost of labour,
pollution, or climate change. It’s always the ‘other’ that should bear the
worst costs - the third world, the whales, the forests, whatever.

The attitude of placing greater importance on ‘us’ over everything and
everyone else is exactly what got us into this fine mess, AND STILL IS. You
may think your view is unpopular but only insofar as people don’t actually
want to hear the truth about themselves.

Note: I’m already aware that my two points may be slightly contradictory.

~~~
nine_k
There is a very simple way to make people pay for CO2 they produce by e.g.
burning things: add a tax on it, so that the price increases. Tax oil-based
fuels, firewood, coal. This will send the signal down every industry,
adjusting price of goods accordingly. Use the money for the anti-warming
geoengineering.

How popular might it be? Like, kill the whole coal industry around the world;
who would mind? Make fuel, say, 2x as expensive; who would mind? Make barbecue
coals as expensive as the meat; would anyone notice? Also, enforce it
globally, including places like India, Russia, or China, the latter critically
dependent on coal-based electricity.

Now compare to building some walls around glaciers, maybe mere thousands of
miles.

I heard somewhere a great parable. Imagine that some aviation specialist would
analyze plane hijacking data and recommend to install strong locked doors to
pilot cabins on airliners. It would have prevented 9/11, saved thousands of
lives, and would have been _incomparably_ cheaper than all those security
measures implemented in the aftermath. But likely every airline would be
against this unneeded expense, and it would be very hard to push this measure.

Same thing with the global warming, wars, and various other (impending)
catastrophes: people hope that they'll get by somehow; how bad it can really
be? You see, nothing is happening! When it hits, the view changes drastically,
but it's too late already.

~~~
phs318u
The meme that an effective carbon tax would ruin entire economies is pretty
much just scaremongering. For a brief period in Australia's recent history, we
had a carbon tax with quite a moderate impact economically which measurably
reduced our carbon output.

[http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-
pric...](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-helped-
curb-emissions-anu-study-finds-20140716-ztuf6.html)

The other point I'll make about huge big-bang projects is that in recent
decades they've only ever been achieved by authoritarian regimes that don't
need the kind of consensus that kills such projects in western democracies. We
live in a world where a significant fraction (perhaps majority?) of the
citizenry is largely ignorant, anti-science, distrusts authority, believes in
outrageous conspiracy theories and lacks the ability to form coherent thoughts
about most things. I put it to you that your chance of getting a large-scale
geo-engineering project supported by that majority at a direct cost to them (a
cost that can't be moderated by behaviour changes by the way) is practically
zero outside an outright dictatorship.

~~~
growlist
OTOH there is a saying if voting really changed anything they would make it
illegal.

------
larkeith
"First, they should construct them in the outlet fjords of Greenland’s largest
glaciers, like Jakobshavn. These fjords are often only a mile or two wide, and
an underwater dredging project there would resemble successful large-scale
civil engineering projects, like the Palm Islands in Dubai. Greenland is also
under the shared control of Denmark and the Greenlandic national government,
two entities that might decide to undertake the construction project
together."

Even if the later stages (building 60-mile-long sills _beneath_ floating ice)
seem unlikely to be cost-efficient, this part definitely sounds like it could
be feasible; It's especially notable to me amongst climate-related
megaprojects in that it does not require any new developments, but rather uses
extant, mature technologies. Building the sills would require "only" time and
money.

~~~
andygates
It's also refreshing that unlike most proposals, it doesn't have to be done
everywhere, forever, on a crazy global scale.

------
Reason077
The cost of engineering projects on this scale would be astronomical.

Surely there would be a better ROI if that money were spent on efforts to
replace fossil fuel power with low-carbon alternatives, electrification of
ground transport, etc?

If we can reduce carbon emissions by 90% or so, quickly enough, then the
climate should stabilise. If that fails, then we can build the mega-projects
as a desperate last stand.

~~~
alanbernstein
Do you think 90% is really feasible any time soon? Wouldn't that require
nonexistent new technology for air travel and container ships?

~~~
nine_k
For air travel, yes.

Large ships are large, and, unlike aircraft, have sufficient room and carrying
capacity to install reasonably efficient carbon-capturing devices.

It will cost a lot, of course.

~~~
larkeith
There's also currently a lack of incentives for ship owners to invest in
emissions-reducing technologies, even if the cost per voyage is _reduced_ \-
see SkySail's troubles [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails)

~~~
Reason077
The real issue that fuel oil is so cheap. If customers are paying for the
fuel, and fuel was a significant cost, then they'd certainly be interested in
shopping around for a ship that can offer lower fuel consumption.

But fuel oil is really just a byproduct of refining crude. It's the muck left
over when you've extracted everything else that's useful. And of course, it is
not taxed, so prices don't account for it's environmental externalities.

If we can reduce overall demand for petroleum products, this should eventually
cause fuel oil prices to rise because there'll be less crude being refined,
and thus reduced supply.

------
will_walker
Any review of geoengineering projects to combat climate change should also
include an analysis or description of iron seeding of oceans to promote
plankton growth. In addition to sequestering carbon such work results in
abundance in the marine food system. A pilot project completed off the Alaskan
coast may have resulted in record salmon runs in 2017 as juvenile fish found
plenty to eat.

~~~
crazy_monkey
Leading to rapid population growth in marine ecosystems and then a ton of
decaying biomass afterwards which releases the CO2 back into the ocean,
asphyxiating the marine life and undoing the benefits.

~~~
derekp7
Did that happen in the trial? Because I thought that anything that died in the
ocean sank to the bottom, gets incorporated into the sediment and turned into
oil.

------
cpeterso
For another big geoengineering project, check out "Atlantropa", an early 20th
century German proposal to dam the Strait of Gibraltar and lower the
Mediterranean Sea by 100 meters to generate hydroelectricity and create more
arable land.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa)

------
jazzabeanie
My biggest concern with these single attribute solutions is that they might
lead to a sense of complacency about CO2 emissions. This could lead to an even
bigger problem with ocean acidification than there would have been otherwise.

~~~
DennisP
If the ice sheets melt, it won't just raise sea levels, it'll lower the
planet's albedo, directly raising the temperature. That'll bring us further
along feedback loops that cause the planet to release greenhouse gases by
itself: CO2 and methane from melting permafrost, CO2 from forest fires,
methane from hydrates, etc. That will quicken ocean acidification.

As for making people complacent: they're already complacent. I include almost
everybody in that. The Paris agreement is unrealistic, lacks enforcement, and
most countries are well behind their modest targets. Germany is increasing CO2
emissions because they're shutting down their nuclear plants. Etc, etc.

Maybe what makes good people complacent is watered-down, sugar-coated plans
for fixing the climate. Just plant trees, put some solar on your roof, turn
down your thermostat, we'll be fine. Maybe it would shake them out of
complacency if we showed them what it would _actually_ take to get us out of
the mess we're in.

------
conductr
Every time I read something like this I think; What would it take to actually
block the sun like Mr. Burns? And, would there be any downsides to attempting
this?

Partially block of course. I was in Maine last year during the big solar
eclipse (in the US); I don't remember how much percent of the sun was blocked
in that location but the temperature dropped several degrees and outdoors it
only visibly got slightly darker in mid-day.

I'm completely naive and ignorant about the practicalities of space stuff and
climate science. But it does always pop in my mind as the obvious way to cool
things down.

~~~
pdonis
_> What would it take to actually block the sun like Mr. Burns?_

Put a small concentration of aerosols (microscopic dust particles or other
light absorbers/reflectors) in the upper atmosphere. Basically a scaled down
version of what happens during a volcanic eruption. The impact of that is one
of the (few) areas where we actually have good predictive power in climate
science.

 _> would there be any downsides to attempting this?_

Depends on how you feel about putting a small concentration of aerosols in the
upper atmosphere. Also, you would have to do very small increments to avoid
having more impact than you want.

------
baxtr
What I’m missing in these kind of articles is an overview of different schemes
to prevent damage causes by climate change, and, then a discussion of the ROI
of each scheme.

------
vowelless
What are the downsides of this? Imagine the earth is getting warmer, but we
have walls holding back melting ice. What is the implication to the earth of a
warmer planet with lower sea level ? Historically, temperature of earth and
sea level have been very correlated. What happens when we interfere with that?

I am thinking about things like mass desertification, changing currents, etc.

~~~
rhodysurf
This doesn’t tackle acidification which is the second side effect of climate
change. Also if the glaciers melt from the ocean getting warmer they will
release carbons

------
phs318u
Does nothing to mitigate or remediate the ongoing acidification of the oceans
and the consequent collapse of the marine food-chain.

[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112?sid=...](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112?sid=7cf666e7-ed44-4205-af86-fe92592a6201)

