
Meet the Man with a Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming - Anon84
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/
======
wwwtyro
I hope I'm not in the minority here -- plans like this terrify me. I'm
currently a scientist by trade, and experience has taught me that while we
have a mediocre grasp of very finely tuned experiments, to be frank, we don't
know shit about predicting the chaos and unintended consequences of our
actions within the complexity of the natural world. When dealing with nature,
it's never as simple as do A to get B and that's it.

There's some slim chance this guy's plan could work, but I am pretty confident
it is infinitely more likely to either do nothing or do something really
awful.

~~~
DennisP
I think there's a cognitive bias at play here. We're already doing a _massive_
experiment on the Earth's atmosphere by adding greenhouse gases to it. But for
some reason that accidental experiment doesn't seem to freak people out nearly
as much as doing an intentional experiment, even one that would partially
compensate for the effects of the accident.

I'd bet that most people would accept geoengineering without a second thought,
as long as we convinced them it was a side effect of a for-profit venture
unrelated to global warming. Because, heck, they're putting up with all the
other crap we do. But tell them we're _intentionally_ changing atmosphere and
they'll riot in the streets.

This particular approach wouldn't be completely unprecedented, because the
same thing happens when large volcanoes erupt...and we've observed the
temperature decrease when that's happened.

It's far from a complete solution, but there's real concern that feedback
loops will soon tip the Earth into an unstoppable warming cycle. The planet
has gone into a hot state before, and rather quickly, with very little input
to kick it off. Albedo adjustment could be a way to hold off that cycle while
we figure out a way to reduce CO2.

~~~
wwwtyro
After rats were accidentally introduced to Macquarie Island and started
ravaging the local ecosystem, efforts to rebuff them -- which included
introducing cats -- only made things worse; the cats -- and the rabbits later
introduced for food -- have since "resulted in the annihilation of two native
bird species and the stripping of Macquarie Island's vegetation."

([http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/epic-fail-
efforts...](http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/epic-fail-efforts-to-
fight-invasive-species-could-cause-ecosystem-meltdown.html))

In case my analogy is not perfectly clear: the rats are the greenhouse gasses,
and the cats are your sulfate aerosols.

> This particular approach wouldn't be completely unprecedented, because the
> same thing happens when large volcanoes erupt...

The implication here is that because volcanoes spew sulfates into the
atmosphere and it results in lower temperatures is that it is okay for us to
do so, considering only the first-order temperature-lowering result (or some
tiny subset of the practically infinite number of variables involved). This is
a dangerous hubris, and I reject the naïveté of it. It is absolutely not the
same. One is a volcano exploding, another is aerosols sprayed from an
airplane.

Just because something in nature has been imbalanced because of our actions
does not mean that we _must_ respond - especially when we cannot predict the
results of that response!

I'll say it again: this sort of tinkering with our biosphere based on first-
order predictions terrify me. They are far more likely to result in something
awful than something beneficial.

~~~
DennisP
A big difference between sulfates and cats is that cats reproduce. Once you've
introduced them, they're really hard to stop. With sulfates you just turn off
the spigot and they're gone in a year or so.

It's not my favorite method. Another, which got some funding from the Gates
Foundation, involves seeding low-altitude clouds. You can shut that one down
in a week.

We already know the second-order effects of doing nothing to counteract
warming, and they really are awful. The earth will quite naturally shrink the
icecaps, release a large amount of methane, along with CO2 from drying forests
and peat, and tip into the state it was in fifty million years ago, when
crocodiles were swimming in the tropical seas at the north pole. The whole
thing was kicked off by an orbital variation that very slightly raised the
temperature.

> Just because something in nature has been imbalanced because of our actions
> does not mean that we must respond

True, but in this case, if we want civilization to survive we'd better do
something. I haven't seen a single argument against albedo adjustment that was
more substantial than "something bad might happen, I don't know what."

~~~
wwwtyro
> With sulfates you just turn off the spigot and they're gone in a year or so.

There's no "just" about this. The sulfates may be gone, but the effect of
their presence will never be, no matter how tiny or great it is. Again, your
consideration of this is first order. I can make this clear with this
question: what are the long-term effects of releasing sulfate aerosols into
the air, and _how do you know_?

> True, but in this case, if we want civilization to survive we'd better do
> something.

I'm not following your logic. As I've outlined with the rats and cats example,
_doing something_ can cause a larger problem than the initial one. If we want
to do something, it should be scaling back our effect on the natural
environment, not giving it a good whack and hoping that the trajectory we send
it on turns out correct.

> I haven't seen a single argument against albedo adjustment that was more
> substantial than "something bad might happen, I don't know what."

The unintended consequences of actions in chaotic systems is a damned good
argument, no matter how simply you try to state it. If no one offered an
argument against the cats on Macquarie Island other than "something might go
wrong here, though I can't predict what", would they have been wrong? No.
They'd be recognizing that they were turning knobs on a system that they did
not understand, and that unpredictably bad reactions could result.

~~~
gruseom
_There 's no "just" about this._

Gerald Weinberg once suggested that whenever you hear the j-word ("just") you
should mentally swap it out for "have trouble". For example, "we'll just add
that feature" means "we'll have trouble adding that feature". I think that may
apply to "just" turning off that spigot.

He also recommended that the s-word, "should", be replaced be "isn't". Funny
rules, but they work: you learn to notice those words as signs that we don't
have a clear view of what we're talking about.

------
jacques_chester
Here's what bugs me about the whole story.

The Headline:

    
    
        (Meet the Man with) A Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming
    

Key point made by David Keith:

    
    
        “I’m not saying it will work, and I’m not saying we
        should do it.” But “it would be reckless not to begin
        serious research on it,” he adds. “The sooner we find
        out whether it works or not, the better.”
    

And people wonder why I am so ungenerous in my assessment of journalists and
editors.

~~~
hartror
This had me twitching right from the start:

    
    
        Increasing what scientists call the planet’s albedo, or
        reflective power ...
    

What scientists call? How about what everyone calls when they need to measure
reflectivity.

I don't know if this is just unfortunate choice of language or the author
exhibits an bit of an us-and-them attitude towards science.

I really hate the term "scientists", the way it is used is like they're this
abstract homogeneous mass of not quite people who hand down decrees from on
high. Instead of what they really are which is a very inhomogeneous group of
hard working people working in a very broad number of fields with a vast array
of ideas.

~~~
panacea
So fucking true. It bugs me no end when I read news reports that mention
"scientists". Do we read articles where "policemen say" or "politicians say"
or "priests say"?

------
Expez
This article is mostly about geo-engineering technology, but I can't help but
feel like the technological side of the venture is the easiest part. Who is
going to make the go/no-go decision? The UN? By majority vote? How much do we
lower the temperature by? I can't imagine an agreement being reached on
something like this in my lifetime.

For this reason I think we're far more likely to see this problem 'solved' by
renegade geo-engineering efforts like what Russ George did
([http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-
ir...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-
fertilisation-geoengineering)) and that has me deeply worried.

------
Jabbles
_According to Keith’s calculations, if operations were begun in 2020, it would
take 25,000 metric tons of sulfuric acid to cut global warming in half after
one year. Once under way, the injection of sulfuric acid would proceed
continuously. By 2040, 11 or so jets delivering roughly 250,000 metric tons of
it each year, at an annual cost of $700 million, would be required to
compensate for the increased warming caused by rising levels of carbon
dioxide. By 2070, he estimates, the program would need to be injecting a bit
more than a million tons per year using a fleet of a hundred aircraft._

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" included a clip from Futurama, which shows
their method of combatting global warming: dumping increasing amounts of space
ice in the oceans.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqVyRa1iuMc>

I'm not criticising the idea, I don't have the required background. But it
doesn't sound like a permanent solution.

~~~
TimReynolds
I’m starting to believe the only permanent solution to these problems is
reducing the global population. We just can’t keep using natural resources at
the rate we are today.

~~~
capisce
Who should we start by killing?

~~~
TimReynolds
Clearly not the solution. But do you really see a future were countries don’t
have population control methods in place.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Hans Rosling seems to think we'll top out at 10 billion.

<http://youtu.be/fTznEIZRkLg>

and the main mechanism is, counter-intuitively, _reducing_ child mortality in
the poorest areas.

------
marcuspovey
Wait... wasn't this basically the plan they came up with in The Matrix? ... I
don't recall that working out too good...

Seriously; while it's tempting to think of grand plans like this, I think that
meddling in ecosystems is what got us into the trouble in the first place.
Climate change is an economic problem, not an engineering one, which is far
less sexy.

~~~
jacques_chester
> _Wait... wasn't this basically the plan they came up with in The Matrix? ...
> I don't recall that working out too good..._

Please tell me that you are not relying on _The Matrix_ as a serious resource
for ... well ... anything.

~~~
StavrosK
Are you implying The Matrix didn't really happen?!

------
kunai
Great. First pesticides, and now this.

No thanks, I don't want to breathe in atomized droplets of highly corrosive
acid. I'd rather die from excessive global heat than live with the unknown
ramifications of injecting the earth with acid.

The actual plan is preposterous, as well. It's clear that Keith has little
understanding of the details of his plan and whether it even stands a chance
at working, because there is absolutely no scientific methodology at play
here. Where is the evidence? There has been no citation of any source that
confirms his assumptions. Where are the small-scale trials? How does someone
just take jets to the atmosphere and spray it full of sulfur without even
knowing the ramifications? When people were testing nuclear power plants for
the first time, they made sure to do so in a controlled environment. Crossing
your fingers and carrying out a very complex procedure for the first time in
an uncontrolled environment without knowing anything beforehand is not only
remarkably stupid, but it's also very dangerous.

Currently, we're in a safe zone with regards to climate change. If we increase
the number of carbon sinks, and if everyone switches to electric cars tomorrow
and aircraft start using cleaner-burning biofuels with low NOx and CO2
emissions, we can decrease our carbon footprint by a large amount. Planting a
lot of trees and stopping deforestation can compensate for the amount of
carbon in our atmosphere already.

Also, investing more time and money into alternative energy isn't a bad idea.
Turbines have been around for centuries; it's about time we started using more
of them. Solar power is advancing very quickly and could really offer a good
source of electric power. If every state had 10 windfarms and 10 solar power
plants, then we could be self-sustaining for as long as the Sun doesn't
implode.

A shame, though, that our bureaucratic government would rather invest money
into restricting freedom rather than invest money to better our world. It's
also a shame that people will be too selfish to give up their hydrocarbon-
burning cars and vehicles.

------
decad
I have always thought it would be interesting to see what affect painting all
the roof's of all the buildings on earth white would have on global warming. I
doubt there is enough buildings in the world for it have any affect though.

~~~
tomelders
It has been suggested (by people smarter than me) that lighter surfaces have
the effect of reducing cloud cover, which allows for more sunlight to reach
the ground which suggests it would only exacerbate the problem.

Some suggest using solar panels instead, which comes with many of the same
benefits as painting roofs white, but absorbs the light as opposed to
reflecting it, and thus wont reduce cloud cover.

Im not a scientist, just a casual observer, but my gut feeling is that the
only way to halt or even reverse climate change is to stop producing as much
carbon. Any other approach is more likely to come with unforeseen problems.

So get to it! Pop down to your local Tesla showroom and do your bit.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Scientists don't really understand how clouds affect climate (some clouds
cause localized cooling, some clouds cause localized heating, it's
complicated), mostly they just include an empirically determined fudge factor
to account for it.

------
stuaxo
I think we do need to reduce the amount of carbon emitted though - it causes
ocean acidification + if we kill off the oceans we will be screwed.

~~~
vixen99
Acidification (the state of something becoming acidic) occurs when the pH
drops below 7.0 and thus the ratio of hydrogen ions to hydroxyl ions > 1\.
This has never occurred and we are nowhere near that situation. pH (it's a log
scale) of the oceans is roughly around 7.7 to 8.4. This is not to debate
future trends!

~~~
DennisP
Seven is not the magic number where things go bad. The pH is dropping about a
hundred times faster than at any time in the past 20 million years, and that's
already affecting sea life. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification>

"Corals, calcareous phytoplankton, mussels, snails, sea urchins and other
marine organisms use calcium (Ca) and carbonate (CO3) in seawater to construct
their calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells or skeletons. As the pH decreases,
carbonate becomes less available, which makes it more difficult for organisms
to secrete CaCO3 to form their skeletal material." <http://www.ocean-
acidification.net/FAQeco.html>

------
rytis
So this will also reduce the amount of power harvested by the sun panels?
Therefore increasing the "green energy" costs?

~~~
greenyoda
It will also reduce the amount of solar energy available to plants, which will
reduce the amount of food we can grow and increase its costs. (And less
photosynthesis means that plants will absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere.)

------
smogzer
Cheaper solution:

\- Make people ride bicicles.

\- Reduce work hours to 4 / day.

\- Make it expensive to buy gas. So people ride bikes and so that Electric
vehicles that are charged by solar panels increase.

\- People will be fitter, happier, more producive and more imaginative and
with free time to plant trees also.

~~~
raverbashing
If they work 4h/day it's still 10 commutes per week

So instead make them work 8h/3days (or 2.5days if you'd rather) then you only
have 6 commutes per week

Or just work remotely

~~~
capisce
Commutes are less mentally draining if you're riding a bike though, you'll
actually gain energy for working on challenging problems instead.

------
LatvjuAvs
Only way to prevent the doom and gloom is to stop fighting it.

------
SunboX
Simple plan? Woman should take men that respect our environment and don't eat
much meat. Problem solved after some years - evolution for the rescue

