Would they really hack the planet to sustain economic growth?

President Obama’s science advisor John Holdren tells the Associated Press that he has brought up geoengineering as a possible alternative in the fight against climate change in discussions with Cabinet-level U.S. officials, as well as with heads of agencies such as NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency (see AP’s article “Obama looking at cooling air to fight warming“).

Although Holdren is not advocating geoengineering right now — he believes reducing greenhouse gases is the right solution to global warming — he is concerned that “temperatures should be kept from rising more than 3.6 degrees,” writes AP science writer Seth Borenstein.

This will require that “the U.S. and other industrial nations … begin permanent dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide pollution by 2015, with developing countries following suit within a decade.”

Holdren’s concern is that such efforts are “racing against three tipping points,” according to Borenstein:

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.

Wikipedia’s entry on “Geoengineering” defines the concept broadly as “the idea of applying planetary engineering to Earth,” involving “the deliberate modification of Earth’s environment on a large scale to suit human needs and promote habitability.”

One example example of geoengineering, Holdren told AP, would be:

Shooting sulfur particles (like those produced by power plants and volcanoes, for example) into the upper atmosphere … “basically mimicking the effect of volcanoes in screening out the incoming sunlight.”

This approach might be used to “try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,” Holdren says.

Go here to see an interesting illustration from the New York Times of some possible solution geoengineering solutions (if you think “solutions” is the right word).

One statement in the Wikipedia article particularly caught my attention — it cited one “body of opinion that supports geoengineering because it may avoid or delay the difficult and expensive transition to a low carbon economy.”

From the Bubbleconomics perspective, I would suggest that governmental and economic interests might choose the geoengineering route as an effort to keep the Big Bubble inflated. In other words, environmental damage might be treated, whether consciously or unconsciously, as the price that has to be paid to maintain the overall economic bubble.

AB — 9 April 2009

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: