Geo-engineering does not deserve serious climate policy consideration

An interesting piece by Pat Mooney, with which I am in full agreement

The likelihood that such technology could bring a safe, lasting, democratic and peaceful solution is miniscule

www.guardian.co.uk...

Well worth a read

I agree with the general sentiment that it should be avoided. But I don' think that means it should be ignored. It still needs to be studied in case: A) Someone else wants to do it, and we have to either persuade them to stop, or deal with the consequences, or B) there really is no better alternative - say the ice caps start melting at such a rate that the sea level is going to rise 40 feet in 20 years.

Right now there IS an alternative - carbon management (which actually includes some forms of geoengineering in the form of carbon removal).

Of course this leads to the familiar "moral hazard" part of the argument. But I'm with David Keith here. Let's not put our heads in the sand.

I actually find it unhelpful - these bits stand out:

As the world watches the airline industries of Australia and New Zealand thrown into chaos by volcanic ash drifting from Chile nearly 10,000km away – not to mention the effects on human health and ecosystems closer to the eruption – it's absurd that the IPCC would entertain the notion of doing something similar, on purpose. Blasting particles into the stratosphere could hurt Africa and Asia by disrupting precipitation as much as or even more than climate change itself.

STRATOSPHERIC ash is NOT what is disrupting flights down-under - it is lower plumes down to as low as 10,000 feet.

Also the sulphur oxides that I understand are generally proposed have NO EFFECT at any altitude - the ash that causes problems is pulverised rock, glass and other minerals - solids, not gas.

Questions about the creation of acid rain would be a more reasonable objection - and are a major part of the concerns for this idea and have been so for years - Aircraft operations would not be affected at all!

But why all this fatalism when we continue to support and subsidise high-emissions industrial agriculture and fail to support small-scale producers farming sustainably? When we continue to subsidize fossil fuel extraction, authorise new coal plants and fail to agree on the next commitment period for the Kyoto protocol? When we know consumption without end cannot be sustained? We also know biodiversity is essential for surviving climate change, yet we have failed to protect it.

the article calls for "democratic" solutions - I presume by this he means solutions supported by the population.

but at het moment all these things he asks ARE "democratic" - insofar as they are done by democratically elected govts across the world to an almost universal lack of outcry against them.

I dont' think I've ever seen a Green Party protest against US/Japanese/European agricultural subsidies for example (it may be they exit but don't make international news pages), populations want to get rid of nuclear and seem to not mind that this is inevitably going to result in burning more coal or gas - even if there's a heap of "renewable" plants built they will still require parallel investment in "base load" - which (AFAIK) means hydro, fossil fuel or nuclear - and most places do not have room for more hydro!

There are many solutions to climate change that we have no choice but to adopt – proven, democratic and no-risk solutions. Why go down the road that is unproven, inequitable and risky? If we aren't capable of the former, why would anyone believe we can pull off the latter?

What are these "proven, democratic and no-risk solutions"??? How were they proved to be a solution to climate change? did they work last time?? Why are they "democratic"? What does that even mean for a climate change solutions - does the solution get a vote? Is it elected??

this particular paragraph sticks out like a sore thimb - saying things exist, that they have ssome highly desireable characteristics - but not actually telling anyone what they are - essentially just making unsupported assertions without providing any evidence, using emotive terms, making up definitions (as I see it).....isn't that what debunkers usually go around correcting??

I see this article as being just as bad in terms of actually informing anyone of anything as a lot of anti-science artices - from creation science/intelligent design to chemmies.....