 |
 |
Interesting article by Caspar Henderson from his blog http://jebin08.blogspot.com/2007/06/thinkable-why-geotherapy-should-not-be.html Monday, June 04, 2007 Thinkable: why geotherapy should not be taboo When European Union governments agreed in 1996 that avoiding 'dangerous climate change' meant keeping global average temperature rise during the 21st century to less of 2°Celsius, it was widely thought that this could be achieved by allowing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to rise to about twice the pre-industrial level -- that is, about 550ppm CO2(e). (At present Angela Merkel and other European politicians remain adamant about this target, and it looks as if the European position will be buoyed by the Brazilian government, among others.) But at least since a conference organised by the UK government in February 2005 (and Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change an edited version of the conference papers published as a book early in 2006), it has been increasingly held as credible that stabilisation at 450ppm or less will be necessary to have a fair chance of avoiding a rise of more than 2°C. Accepting this position for the sake of argument [as does a background paper I wrote earlier this year for a UN report that appears later this year], I'd like to highlight what I think could be a matter that is not as well or widely discussed as it should be. That is, some forms of geo-engineering or geotherapy should not be dismissed at the start of serious discussion about how to manage climate change. Consider a point made by Paul Baer and Michael Mastandrea in High Stakes (IPPR November 2006), and restated in Two Degrees, One Chance, a paper from 4 UK development NGOs published for this week's G8 conference. They note that the most stringent pathway for GHG reductions still carries a 9 - 26% [i.e., up to about 1 in 4] risk of exceeding 2°C. "This pathway requires emissions globally to peak in 2010 and thn contract by 5% each year thereafter, reducing concentrations to below 400ppm by the end of the century" (page 7 of the latter document). I have never met someone I would consider sane who believes that global emissions can be made to peak in 2010. So if Baer and Mastandrea's reasoning and the modelling on which it is based are correct, then (I think) this follows: to be reasonably confident of a greater than 3 in 4 chance of avoiding 'dangerous climate change' we need to find out what possibilites, if any, there may be to actively reduce GHG atmospheric concentrations within the next few (say, one to five) decades. Hence the likes of Richard Branson's CO2 prize. Amongst the arguments I am aware of against this case are: 1) it can never work; 2) the cure may be worse than the disease and 3) it fosters 'moral hazard'. I have not seen any convincing rationales for 1), but would be glad to read or hear some. As for 2), well yes there are likely to be some truly terrible ideas out there; but it is not clear that at least one that has had some air play -- Paul Crutzen's thought experiment on injection of aerosols into the stratosphere -- is absolutely terrible. And put that to one side, there *may* be (I am not saying *are*) other ideas out there which deliver actual benefits, such as large scale but community based and controlled creation of biochar (Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University says biochar in combination with biofuels could store up to 9.5 billion tonnes of carbon a year. He may or may not be right, and he is one of the first to call for more R&D. See: Which biofuels? 2) And regarding 3), I think it misses some but not all of the point about where we actually are. 'Moral hazard' is most often used in argument by people on the right of politics -- to argue, for example, that people should not have access to free health care because they only abuse the service. That risk exists of course, but the reality can be rather different, as Malcolm Gladwell has shown. With regard to climate change we are already in the emergency room. The science seems to be making it pretty clear that we need to take all possible measures to reduce emissions, but even if we do there may still a high level of risk (i.e. up to 1 in 4) of dangerous climate change. It may therefore be prudent to look at the possibilities, if there are any, for accelerated reduction in atmospheric concentrations back down below 400 and even to pre-industrial levels within a few decades (a point made by, for example, Tom Goreau). Whatever the truths of these matters, future argument will may from a little more thought and a little less emotion, moralising and opprobrium. On this point, though not on some others, I agree to some extent with Josie Appleton who criticised Six Degrees for not talking 'the language of environmental managemen'. As I wrote in my own review Six Caveats about Six Degrees'...The fifth caveat is that Six Degrees makes only a brief contribution on perhaps the biggest of all questions: what humanity needs to *do* to get its act together...' Having got so many people excited maybe we need to work hard on making this issue a little more boring. (go to online version at http://jebin08.blogspot.com/2007/06/thinkable-why-geotherapy-should-not-be.html for links) -- George Marshall, Director of Projects, Climate Outreach Information Network, 16B Cherwell St., Oxford OX4 1BG UK Office Tel. 01865 727 911 Mobile 0795 150 4549 Website: www.COINet.org.uk The Climate Outreach Information Network is a charitable trust with the objective of 'advancing the education of the public in the subject of climate change and its impact on local, national, and global environments'. DONATE ONLINE to our work by visiting www.charitychoice.co.uk/donation.asp?ref=153334 Please join our discussion-free announcements lists by sending a blank e-mail to: NATIONAL EVENTS- [log in to unmask] OXFORD EVENTS - [log in to unmask] COIN NEWS- [log in to unmask]