With geoengineering. But the hair shirters don't like it:
Stabilization can only be achieved by cutting current carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent. This means implementing highly unpopular policies of carbon rationing and higher energy prices. So some climate change researchers and environmental activists worry that the public and policymakers will see geoengineering as way to avoid making hard decisions. "If humans perceive an easy technological fix to global warming that allows for 'business as usual,' gathering the national (particularly in the United States and China) and international will to change consumption patterns and energy infrastructure will be even more difficult," writes Rutgers University environmental scientist Alan Robock.
Well, boo frickin' hoo.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Commenter Chris Potter has a pithy translation: "If there's no good reason for people to do what I want them to do, they won't do it."
As many of us have believed for a long time, it ain't about anything but control. If they can't control the carbons, and we do it on our own, they still hate the results. Selfish, very selfish.
On the carbon footprint front, I swapped out every bulb in my house for the pig tail bulbs. Over the last 3 months, the average drop in my power bill is $17.00 per month. It took me about 2 1/2 months to recoup the cost of the bulbs. I have no idea how that affects my carbon footprint, I don't care. I actually did it because I'm a tightwad and I'm just pocketing the savings, not sending them to Greenpeace or People for Polar Bears.
Yeah, I know, selfish, very selfish.
As many of us have believed for a long time, it ain't about anything but control. If they can't control the carbons, and we do it on our own, they still hate the results. Selfish, very selfish.
On the carbon footprint front, I swapped out every bulb in my house for the pig tail bulbs. Over the last 3 months, the average drop in my power bill is $17.00 per month. It took me about 2 1/2 months to recoup the cost of the bulbs. I have no idea how that affects my carbon footprint, I don't care. I actually did it because I'm a tightwad and I'm just pocketing the savings, not sending them to Greenpeace or People for Polar Bears.
Yeah, I know, selfish, very selfish.
Engineers might enjoy clicking through to Alan Robock's article. He lists 20 reasons why geoengineering might not be a good idea -- the one really bad reason was the one quoted, but the other 19 are interesting. In the spirit of continuing to highlight what was bad about Robock's article, I'll quote the next worst reason, which I thought was interesting if not pursuasive:
"Atmospheric aerosols close to
the size of the wavelength of light produce
a white, cloudy appearance to the sky.
They also contribute to colorful sunsets,
similar to those that occur after volcanic
eruptions. The red and yellow sky in The
Scream by Edvard Munch was inspired
by the brilliant sunsets he witnessed over
Oslo in 1883, following the eruption of
Krakatau in Indonesia.[13]
Both the disappearance of blue skies and the appearance
of red sunsets could have strong psycho-
logical impacts on humanity."
Honestly, the first question someone whom I'd respect would answer is Do we actually want to 'fight' global warming? That basically is a commitment to geo-engineering, a statement that our preferred approach to the environment is to preserve the way it is now at almost any cost.
This reminds me unpleasantly of the old-fashioned Smoky the Bear approach to forest fires (put them out! always! at any cost!) and the fierce efforts some coastal regions have put into preserving the exact coastline through rip-raps and barriers, and the extensive flood-control work along the Mississippi and elsewhere, all of which had unforeseen negative environmental consequences.
Fact is, the climate does change, all by itself, even if we don't help it along. The Sun is not a perfectly steady star, there are unknown subtle effects from variations in the Earth's orbit, galactic cosmic rays for all we know, incoming comets (maybe microcomets), the subtle effects of tectonic drift (which change global wind and water patterns).
Is it really wise to be trying to stand athwart any such change and yell stop? I'm not sure. Maybe the best approach is to get more flexible, adapt, ride the beast with balance and skill rather than try by main force to divert its path.
There's no real thought that life itself is in any danger from climate change. It's really only our fairly delicate economic web that is endangered. So we're really not "saving the planet" -- we're just saving ourselves and our preferred living arrangements. Maybe we should try to be less grandiose, start thinking about spending all that energy and effort learning how to go with the climate change ebb and flow, how to adapt our social and economic institutions so that we can prosper with a global climate that's not what we have been used to, and which certainly continue to have fluctuations, both short and long term. I mean, this is hardly the only conceivable climate change the Earth might suffer over the next million years, huh? Should we be spending our resources fighting this change, or learning better how to deal with change in general?
You know? Maybe agriculture needs to be able to shift to Canada without massive disruption, maybe we need to get a lot better at hurricane prediction, so we can deal when they change frequency or location. Maybe we need to take all that research power put into refining global warming models and use it help predict next year's growing season length, rainfall, et cetera, so we can rationally respond to even the ordinary short-term variations in the weather, e.g. a particularly hot or cold or rainy or dry year.
That would be a change (in our attitude towards our ecosystem) that I could believe in.
Carl,
I think Mike Griffin said it another way on public TV, basically, "What gives us the right to pick a particular setting for the global thermostat?" There are many people who would benefit from a different global climate.
As regards geoengineering I prefer orbital adjustable mirrors. That way, if we get it wrong, it's easier to change. For example, if we are actually in for global cooling (which is much worse for people) we could reflect more sunlight towards the planet rather than away.
Yours,
Wince
Giant orbital mirrors capable of heating and cooling the Earth?
Mmmm. Imagine the capability of these as weapons.
So many of Robock's objections look like features, not bugs, to me.
It could be used as a weapon by the USA. Bad because???
It would allow us to keep burning fossil fuels. Isn't that the point?
It will result in the development of new technologies that will have other uses. I'm so sure that having a mass space launch system would be a bad thing....