By Oscar A. Escobar
Gt - FL USA
Gt - FL USA
Is that all there is left?
In other words: geoengineering or geoengineering?
"The
alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of
humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot
state.”—Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
I have seen
this quote in some responses to geoengineering
articles, [1][2] but I don’t know if it was actually said by him.
The thought
is nevertheless terrifying, reason why apocalyptic rhetoric is used to argue
for an immediate implementation of geoengineering technologies. [3]
The truth
is, this could also be possible as a consequence of some of the more extreme geoengineering
technologies, be it by catastrophic technological failure [4], shoddy or
incompetent practices [5] and last but not least… purposely… i.e. sabotage,
eco-terrorism or other bad intentions. [6]
The idea of geoengineering as “palliative” [7] is another form of rhetorical argument for geoengineering.
Here the palliative is chosen INSTEAD of the
actual cure or meaningful action.
Palliative-ism is belied by the continued subsidies
to our “global fossil fuel addiction” [8][9][9a*] over, let say, (at least) an equal level
of commitment to the development of alternative and renewable sources of energy [10] and climate change mitigation strategies. [11]
Moreover, the continuous efforts put forth by
the fossil fuel industry and political allies to deny the effects of fossil
fuel emissions [12] and their readiness to jump into the geonegineering
bandwagon [13] are also indications that these technologies are not really seen
as short term and temporary.
But no, that is not all that it's left, there
are other options!
There are
many climate change mitigation strategies which if infused with the necessary support
for their development, diffusion and implementation would take us away from
that most feared apocalypticism vs. palliative-ism duality.
Think of:
Efficiency
in food production and distribution. (We currently waste about ½ of all the
food produced in the US [14] and Globally. [15])
Wouldn't be more logical,
safer and productive to invest some of the $1.9 trillion currently subsidizing fossil fuels [16] on tackling this
problem instead?
What about
putting some of that $1.9 trillion into alternative and renewable energy sources
like wind, solar, geothermal, ocean thermal and tidal energy instead of making
it difficult? [17] [18]
Yes, there are alternatives to geonengineering.
But if there is a role to be played by geoengineering, I think that in general, the credibility of important geoengineering studies suffer by the 'emergency framing' and the assertion that GE by SRM would be a transitory and temporary process, while subsidies remain in place for the industry who, trough its emissions and actions, is one of the principal causes of anthropogenic climate change; an industry that in its totality is basking in record profits. [19][20]
Last Update:
August 29, 2014
Un-burnable oil: An examination of oil resource utilisation in a decarbonised energy system
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151300966X
January 23, 2014
FRAMING
GEOENGINEERING ASSESSMENT (OPINION ARTICLE)
Bellamy
(2013) - GEOENGINEERING OUR CLIMATE?
http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2013/12/10/framing-geoengineering-assessment-opinion-article/The James Lovelock BashersBy Keith Kloor | April 25, 2012 - Discover Magazine
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/04/25/the-james-lovelock-bashers/#.Ut5icrROnIV
James
Lovelock Finally Walks Back His Absurd Doomism, But He Still Doesn’t Follow
Climate Science
BY JOE ROMM ON
APRIL 23, 2012 - ClimateProgresshttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/23/469749/james-lovelock-finally-walks-back-his-absurd-doomism-but-he-still-doesnt-follow-climate-science/
‘In case of emergency press here’: framing
geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change
Nils
Markusson et al – DOI: 10.1002/wcc.263 -
Published online Dec. 02, 2013
November 19, 2013
Apocalypse Nicked!
Clare Heyward and Steve Rayner - 04 July 2013Other readings:
Fact or Fiction?: We Can Push the Planet into a Runaway Greenhouse Apocalypse
A new study suggests human activity could, in theory, bring about the end of most life on Earth
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-runaway-greenhouse
References:
[1] Comment
by Brad Arnold (Mpls/MN/55416) on September 14th, 2012 to:
Geoengineering
Faces Dilemma: Experiment or Not?
By Michael
D. Lemonick
[2] Comment
by dobermanmacleod 05:06 AM 9/2/09 to:
Is
geoengineering humanity's last hope to avoid catastrophic global warming?
By David
Biello
[3] Why Is
Arctic Methane An Emergency?
[4] Double
catastrophe: Intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal
collapse
Seth D.
Baum et al. 2013
[5] Rogue geoengineering scam artist dupes
Haida, pollutes ocean, embarrasses Canada
Peter Sale’s
blog October 18, 2012
[6] The
violent side of environmentalism
Jan McGirk 28.06.2013
[7] Palliative
Adjective
(of a
treatment or medicine) relieving pain or alleviating a problem without dealing
with the underlying cause:
short-term,
palliative measures had been taken
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/palliative?q=palliative
[8] ENERGY
SUBSIDY REFORM: LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS
International
Monetary Fund January 28, 2013
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Energy
subsidies have wide-ranging economic consequences. While aimed at
protecting
consumers, subsidies aggravate fiscal imbalances, crowd-out priority public
spending,
and depress private investment, including in the energy sector. Subsidies also
distort
resource allocation by encouraging excessive energy consumption, artificially
promoting
capital-intensive industries, reducing incentives for investment in renewable
energy, and
accelerating the depletion of natural resources. Most subsidy benefits are
captured by
higher-income households, reinforcing inequality. Even future generations
are
affected through the damaging effects of increased energy consumption on global
warming.
This paper provides: (i) the most comprehensive estimates of energy subsidies
currently
available for 176 countries; and (ii) an analysis of ―how to do‖ energy subsidy
reform,
drawing on insights from 22 country case studies undertaken by IMF staff and
analyses
carried out by other institutions.
Full
article:
[9] Trillions of Dollars are Pumped into our
Fossil Fuel Addiction Every Year
Skeptical science 2 April 2013
[9a] *(Added Jan, 10, 204) -Encyclopedia of Global Change: Environmental Change and Human Society, Volume 1
December
2001 ISBN-13: 978-0195108255
Geoengineering
“These
geo-engineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil fuel combustion
on the climate without abating fossil fuel use”
[10] Alternative
& Renewable Energy
[11] MIT
Climate CoLab
[12]Republican Climate Denial Is No Political
Problem — For Now
The
Atlantic wire
By PHILIP
BUMP JUL 29, 2013
[13] Exxon-Mobil's
"Geo-Engineering" Discourse Is Just More Futurological Greenwashing
The
Futurist
Dale
Carrico's blog Posted on July 23, 2012
[14] Wasted:
How America Is Losing Up to 40
Percent of
Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill
Dana Gunders,
AUGUST 2012
[15] GLOBAL
FOOD
WASTE NOT,
WANT NOT
Feeding the
9 Billion: The tragedy of waste
Institution
of Mechanical engineers, 2013
[16] “On a
―post-tax‖ basis—which also factors in the negative externalities from energy
consumption—subsidies are much higher at $1.9 trillion (2½ percent of global
GDP or 8 percent of total government revenues).”
[17] Green
Energy Advocates Criticize Lack of State Incentives
by Lauren
Sausser , May 22, 2012
[18]
Uncertainty Over Tax Credit Hurting Wind Industry
by Mijin
Cha on August 24, 2012
[19] Big Oil
Rakes in Huge Profits, Again
Center for
American Progress
By Daniel
J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman | August 2, 2013
[20]Big Oil’s
Banner Year: Higher Prices, Record Profits, Less Oil
Climate Progress,
FEBRUARY 8, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment