US urges scientists to block out sun

The_Zergling

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

Wow. We the developed world certainly have quite an egocentric world view, as in: "We've got ours, but you can't get yours."

Professor Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely to be three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-degree rise by the end of the century.

"Hell, we buy fire insurance based on a 1 per cent chance," he said. "If we're going to be risk averse … we cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those things. "There's at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you're talking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that's Russian roulette with a Luger."

Professor Schneider's views on this pretty much sum up my views on the subject. It's not to say that those new radical ideas to reflect sunlight wouldn't work, but considering the stakes we as a people had better do all that we can to make sure it doesn't get to that point, not just through high tech gizmos that let us live our lives just as we live them now, but through a complete change in attitude and behavior...
 
Last edited:

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
That's........responsible.......

Didn't Greenland use to be actually green?(Until the little Ice Age of the 1400s?) If so, what's the chance that we are going back to pre-1400 conditions?

Then again, is it that hard to subsidise solar panel payments??? -.-'
If they do, China will immediately(practically) become the #1 world polluter. (Esp. when the US style of housing fits the bill perfectly.)
 

Scratch

Captain
The ice on greenland is a remnant of the last big ice age 10.000 years ago. In the "medieval warm period" around 1000-1400 (?) there was less ice, especially the costs wich were partly poputlated were ice free.

Last week there was that UN climate conference in Paris. If I remember correct, it said, if the warming continues without taking action, greenlands ice could melt away in 100 years. (?)

Anyway, they called for immidiate action to reduce the expulsion of greenhous gases, to at least decrease the amount of that warming.
Among the industrial nations wich don't want to take specific actions because of concerns over the domestic industry are the US, Russia, China and India.
Lately I've seen a short TV report of some kind of hearing (?) in a kongress comittee were scientists were complaining the govt would not take their reports seriously or tamper where possible. Kongressmen later stated they did not recieve reporst in that regard from govt agencies wich they had asked for.

Subsidising is not hard IMO, since it actually worked here. The quest for renewable energies has found massiv govt support in that sector. And we are world market leader in that techs. The very possitive thing about it, besides decreasing the use of fossil fuels, it's an important future technology that has been settled.

Somehing I somehow can't understand is the US quest for energy indedendence on the one hand but this reluctance to go away from oil on the other.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
they named it greenland to lure innocent Norwegians to setle there;) Pure advertizing scam...
 

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
I think the commitee say that the change is irreversible. (And the stats they show will NOT convinced anymore people.)

Germany have a subsidising method? Like what?

Golly, Golly, tsk, tsk.
 

Scratch

Captain
Well, a global warming to a certain degree will happen for sure, it's not irreversible to a point where nothing changes.
But starting action now, can still make a real differance in the amount of that warming. Best case is around 2,5K more, worst around 6,5K. That always sounds little, but that's only avarage and still can make a big difference.
But you might be right. Who doesn't belive it now, won't probably believe it in the (near) future.

Some years ago, there was the "100.000 roofs program" for example. If you put a photo-voltaic system (?) on your roof, a certain amount of the cost (don't know how much exactly) was funded by the program. It ended really successfull in '03. There were smaller follow-up programs.
And if you have such a system on your roof and produce more electricity than you need, you can induct it into the grid and get paid for it.
Until recently, taxes on alternative (biological) fuel was much lower than on normal gasoline.
Now every company selling gasoline, has to add a certain amount of "bio-fuel".
There are similar programs for other "renewable energy" branches.
 

Ryz05

Junior Member
Any direct method to combat global warming is overly optimistic, and short term at best. A better bet is to ease global emissions and dependence on coal and fossil oil as primary energy sources. Let major industries and homes run on electricity from nuclear power (fission or possibly fusion), automobiles on hydrogen or electric power, buisnesses close to major rivers run on hydropower, farms with open fields run on wind power, places near the coast be supplied with tidal power, and everywhere be provided with solar power. Any developing nations that need help should be supplied by the UN with nuclear powerplants or let the more developed countries donate them energy made from future fusion nuclear powerplants. Every country, not just certain individual countries, should come together and help each other with climate change and energy problems.
 

Scratch

Captain
Ryz05, I find your statement a bit problematic. But it's difficult.
I think for a highly industrialized nation, already consuming a lot of electric energy, like germany, it's a mistake to abandon nuclear energy in now only 18years. I deem the CO2 expulsion point more critical right now.
But to resolve that issue with building hords of new nuclear power station around the world only creates new problems.
Because all that nuclear waste will be a legacy for future generations.
Besides, uranium ore doesn't exist in indefinite quantities either.
And the fact that you'd have to controll the nuclear material in all those underdeveloped nations, where it may be sold to the black market.
Fusion is a great chance, but still decades off, I think.
 

Ryz05

Junior Member
Scratch, CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are more troublesome than finding a place underground to store depleted uranium rods. Also, I never said Germany (or any other industrialized nation for that matter) should replace nuclear powerplants. Rather, I said the opposite - you should read what I wrote more clearly. Uranium for nuclear fission might become depleted, but nuclear fusion is the future.
 

Scratch

Captain
I did understand what you said, perhaps I didn't anwser in a clear way.
I understand you believe there should be more nucler plants to reduce CO2 emission. My point was that I don't think it is a sole proper method for the reasons I stated. The thing with us (Germany) abandoning it was more to say that it's currently not a good short/medium turn move either.
However, if possible I think you should try to replace nuclear energy in the long run either.
Just burrying tons of nuclear waste under the surface you live on, isn't really comfortable to me.
And it still doesn't address the other points I made.
Finite amount of uranium ore, nuclear material in non-develped, therefore probably unsecure nations ...
Besides, it's not an easy thing to run a nuclear plant. You have to train engeneers and so on, wich takes long and is expensive.
 
Top