Comment on this entry
The Efficiency Paradox and Geo-Engineering
Nobody is a bigger supporter of energy efficiency than I am. Yet, it is urgent we understand that it is not a solution to our climate crisis.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Brad Arnold on 03/25 at 12:39 AM
Finally a voice of reason.
For example, now Monbiot is saying: "Yes, it might already be too late - even if we reduced emissions to zero tomorrow - to prevent more than 2C of warming; but we cannot behave as if it is, for in doing so we make the prediction come true. Tough as this fight may be, improbable as success might seem, we cannot afford to surrender." --"If we behave as if it's too late, then our prophecy is bound to come true," The Guardian, 17 Mar '09
In other words, we ought not acknowledge carbon dieting is an unfeasible scheme, because then it will be unattainable. Do you see the denial and contradiction in this?
Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:
"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008
But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil world wide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."
"The Copenhagen Climate Conference 2009 is likely to conclude on a strict regulatory regime on emissions for developed countries rather than for the developing countries, nobel laureate R K Pachauri said here today. "Of course, the developing countries will be exempted from any such restrictions but the developed countries will certainly have to cut down on emission," Pachauri said, adding, "some strict regulations are going to be there."" --Economic Times of India, 1 February 2009
"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." --The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to world leaders in 2008
Frankly, I don't understand the disconnect; a carbon diet scheme is unfeasible, so it is either geoengineering or a climate catastrophe:
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
Good for you Mr Miller, you are light years ahead of other authors that publish on this website and elsewhere. Perhaps those other authors that are anti-geoengineering and think we should restrict (rather than encourage) such research should climb down from their ivory towers and get real. Who in their right mind would advocate a massive natural cull of humanity over geoengineering??
Posted by EmbraceUnity on 03/25 at 04:21 PM
From the looks of it, Dr Lovelock is absolutely correct that we really seem to have only two choices.
The time has come to admit that we have failed to live sustainably within our environment. Dying off in large numbers is not an acceptable option. We need to mobilize our society towards solving this issue on all fronts, but from the looks of it we only have only one magic bullet.
We need to approach geo-engineering for what it is: an engineering project. Perhaps it is the most important engineering project ever undertaken, but as with any engineering project it must be approached by understanding all the components and then doing it.
We probably have enough time to solve this problem before the most dire predictions come true, but we cannot put off discussion on this topic simply because it is so grim.
-Edward
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
|
IEET Blog