Geoengineering Freakiness
| Mon Oct. 19, 2009 10:47 AM PDT
Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner have a sequel out to Freakonomics called (natch) Superfreakonomics. This time, however, instead of investigating interesting trivia like the possible fixing of sumo wrestling matches, they decided to take on actual important topics like global warming. If the blogospheric freakout over the past few days is any indication, they appear to have made a considerable hash out of it.
I haven't written about this before now because I don't have a copy of the book. (It used to be searchable on Amazon, and Joe Romm used to have a photocopy of the chapter in question on his blog, but the publisher took both of them down.) However, you can find copious takedowns of Levitt and Dubner's work from Romm, Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, RealClimate, and others all over the intertubes. Dubner and Levitt respond on their blog.
Without a copy of the offending chapter in hand I'm reluctant to say very much about this, but I will say one thing. L&D's writeup centers on geoengineering, the study of gigantic projects to reduce global warming. In particular, they're fans of the idea of pumping huge amounts of sulfates into the stratosphere in order to reflect a little bit of sunlight back into space and away from earth. The theory is simple: Less sunlight = less heat energy = less global warming even if CO2 levels keep rising.
There's actually nothing wrong with studying stuff like this. I happen to agree that, politically speaking, the odds of getting tough global agreements in place to limit greenhouse gas emissions don't look good. And if CO2 levels keep rising despite the best efforts of climate scientists and environmentalists, we might want to have some alternatives available even if the alternatives have a lot of risk associated with them.
Still, if you talk about this stuff, you have two serious obligations. The first is to make it very, very clear that reducing CO2 really is the first best solution and we should do everything in our power to figure out ways to make that happen. It's not technically impossible, it won't wreck the economy, and we can do it if we manage to muster up the political will. It's reckless and wrong to even hint at anything different.
Second, you need to make clear what the risks of your favored geoengineering projects are. What's more, if political intertia is the problem with greenhouse gas reductions, you need to think just as seriously about the political problems with geoengineering. Ryan Avent:
Begin with the fact that politicians are extremely risk averse. Who wants to be the guy in charge of the effort to build the who-knows-how-many-billions-of-dollars 18-mile long sulphur dioxide tube? The downside risks are enormous relative to the potential upside benefits.
....But the real failing is the inability to consider the way that various interest groups are likely to act. In the best case scenario for geoengineering, costs are likely to be focused on certain groups and certain locations, and those groups may respond to the proposed solution by doing anything from demanding compensation to threatening war, depending on their severity. If risk models indicate that certain particularly bad outcomes might result from the project with certain probabilities, and they will, the potential for those outcomes will be negotation flashpoints, potentially leading to intractable divisions between countries.
Geoengineering seems like the easy approach now, because it’s not on the table. There is no hysterical battle between proponents and opponents, no op-ed bickering between scientists and faux scientists, no global debate on who would and should bear which costs associated with whatever solution is agreed upon. But as soon as it became a real possibility, a fierce debate would rage. And, if one major geoengineering solution were tried and it failed, it is difficult to see how another attempt could win support, and at that point, of course, we’d have lost the ability to address climate change by reducing emissions when it would have helped.
Italics mine. Everything seems easier when it's just an academic exercise. But geoengineering isn't something that a single country can pull off. It's a global problem, after all. That means treaties and conferences and endless debate over costs and benefits and what the target temperatures ought to be and who's responsible for side effects. There just aren't any easy answers here.
It's also worth noting that even if we eventually resort to geoengineering, our job will be a lot easier if we've already made some progress on reducing greenhouse gases. Trying to solve a 7°C temperature rise entirely with atmospheric sulfates would require a lot of sulfates and produce a lot of side effects. But if we manage to solve half the problem with greenhouse gas reductions, we're still way ahead of the game even if we can't manage the other half. It means that we only have to address a 3°C problem with sulfates, and while this might still be dangerous and unpredictable, it's a lot less dangerous and unpredictable.
Anyway, this is a long post for someone who was reluctant to say anything until he'd actually read the book chapter that's causing all the fuss. But it's a point worth making no matter what Levitt and Dubner actually said. We may be forced into some kind of geoengineering project eventually, but we shouldn't let a bunch of obsessive Microsoft refugees convince us that it's a super neato solution to all our woes. It's not. It's a last ditch solution that we should think about implementing only if we completely screw up every better opportunity.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
I support Geo-engineering
Submitted by MNPundit (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 12:17 PM PDT.
I support Geo-engineering 200%. It's the only way and if we do end up pulling it off, it's one more step to the conquest of the observable universe.
Still, if you talk about
Submitted by Darryl (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 12:32 PM PDT.
Still, if you talk about this stuff, you have two serious obligations. The first is to make it very, very clear that reducing CO2 really is the first best solution and we should do everything in our power to figure out ways to make that happen. Second, you need to make clear what the risks of your favored geoengineering projects are.
Wait, so there's a "very serious" obligation to pass on speculative pseudo-religious dogma as fact and to prognosticate what other speculative pseudo-religious dogma will arise in opposition to your less radical proposals? Pointing out that there's no scientific consensus for man-made global warming is forbidden? Interesting. Why are you so eager to shut down debate?
Agreed
Submitted by Go, Sestak! (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 12:34 PM PDT.
Good post, Kevin. I agree that it is exceedingly unlikely the world will get its act together and *not* burn all the easily-accessible coal, oil, and natural gas. And then geoengineering projects will only come about when we are well into catastrophe stage.
What I think is superfreaky
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 12:35 PM PDT.
What I think is superfreaky superfreak is listening to *all* these economists most of whom have awful records of predictions/modeling of the economy and many of whom have made their own recommendations that have destroyed our economy (DeLong and free trade) try to pass themselves off as physicists, engineers, and climatologists.
How they find the time to read the papers, examine the data, repeat the experiments, and still write their econ papers, blogs, AND teach their students I have no idea.
good point - made me say
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 21, 2009 9:15 AM PDT.
good point - made me say "hell yeah" right out loud.
"try to pass themselves off
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 12:43 PM PDT.
"try to pass themselves off as physicists, chemists, engineers, and climatologists."
Hey, what is geoengineering? If we all paint our rooftops white, is that geoengineering? If we all move to CFLs and double paned windows, is that geoengineering? Is it geoengineering if a government entity outlaws incandescent bulbs? If one barge does as suggested a few years back and dumps iron filings into the water (regardless of whether that works or not) does that count as a geoengineering project?
Since Dubner's project is NOT on the table, why are all the economists-cum-physicists-cum-chemists-cum-engineers wasting their time on anything that hasn't been proposed, we can't do today and relatively easily?
Hey Wait!
Submitted by optical weenie on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 1:05 PM PDT.
I seem to recollect that we now scrub SO2 from our coal fired power plants because the sulfates that result caused that dad-blasted acid rain problem. Funny how, at that time, no one could have predicted the potential of that "action" on global warming.
Why purposefully inject sulfates into the atmosphere. Maybe we should just remove them scrubbers? Huh!
This is a pile of crap.
I propose modifying your
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 1:08 PM PDT.
I propose modifying your scheme to help out with the budget deficit. Instead of allowing just anyone to remove their scrubbers, I say we require these folks to purchase permits on an open market, like an auction.
I propose we call this "uncap and trade."
Without commenting on the
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 2:06 PM PDT.
Without commenting on the value of this proposal, I would point out that ozone at ground level is a pollution which we try to reduce, while ozone in the stratosphere protects us from cancer.
There is a major difference between a smokestack that is a few hundred yards high, and 18 miles high.
Or, to put it differently, how about we let the professionals (those who ACTUALLY understand the issues --- which would appear to excuse Levitt, Dubner and Myhrvold from consideration) tell us the pro's and cons rather than simply assuming our vague understanding of the world, complete with zero knowledge of the relevant chemistry and biology, is good enough to make informed decisions?
Levitt's Response
Submitted by Sebastian H (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 1:08 PM PDT.
Levitt has a response that look pretty good here.
For the Freakonomics
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 1:29 PM PDT.
For the Freakonomics chapter, see http://delong.typepad.com/files/superfreakonomics-chapter-5.pdf
More evidence that Global Warming is really religion
Submitted by John Hansen (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 1:45 PM PDT.
Making sure to comment on a critique of a book which is not yet out because it might be construed as against your theory...
You global warming advocates are starting to sound like a bunch of scared religionists. But of course, that's what you are.
The denialists are out in force today
Submitted by bad Jim (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 2:11 PM PDT.
Sincere denialists would be as opposed to geo-engineering as they are to CO2 emissions reduction - why mitigate a non-existent problem? It's as though they're arguing in the alternative:
1. There is no global warming
2. Global warming is not caused by human activity
3. Global warming is caused by human activity, but we can't or shouldn't combat it by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
They seem very certain that we should continue to burn oil and coal as fast as we can.
CO2 reduction is stopgap; reduce human population
Submitted by joel hanes (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 2:17 PM PDT.
In the short term, we're going to be obligated to reduce CO2 or face some pretty awful consequences.
We should learn from this that our finite Earth cannot sustainably support seven or eight billion human beings, all of whom aspire to a first-world standard of living. If there were only one or two billion of us, most of our environmental and resource-depletion problems -- overfishing the oceans, desertification, climate change, peak oil, etc -- would be proportionately less dire and much easier to solve.
And so we need to find just and humane ways to achieve a smaller global population. Fortunately, it seems that educating women and making effective contraception widely available will help quite a bit.
"And so we need to find just
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 2:25 PM PDT.
"And so we need to find just and humane ways to achieve a smaller global population."
I propose we auction off permits. We can call this "cervical cap and trade."
no a better idea
Submitted by optical weenie on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 3:24 PM PDT.
is to just castrate all men. Then we can call it cas'n'trate.
The technology for global
Submitted by B on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 8:32 AM PDT.
The technology for global castration is already in our hands. A million mongolian sheep herders could do it in a week.
Vesectomies would require doctors, anesthesiologists, nurses, HMOs, drug companies, medical supply companies, etc. It would be like negotiating with jar of molasses.
Mother Nature
Submitted by nepeta on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 6:05 AM PDT.
I think that Mother Nature, through the various impacts of global warming, will massively reduce the size of global human population. Unfortunately, this reduction will be neither just nor humane.
>Global Warming is really
Submitted by Bruce the Canuck (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 2:17 PM PDT.
>Global Warming is really religion
Yes, of course. Just like evolution, cosmology, and the germ theory of disease!
Them scientists, they don't know near so much as they think they do, huh? Just after grants! All those post docs, living high on grant money with their fancy toy ranches in texas, private jets, and trophy wives.
:-P
Difficult politics
Submitted by pliny (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 2:31 PM PDT.
Agree about getting world agreement to implement geoengineering. AGW has winners and losers, geo has losers and winners. Inagine after a few balmy Moscow winters, asking the Russians to put up billions of dollars to get it back to where it was.
One thing people forget about sulfates etc - you might get the temperature down again, but at the permanent cost of reduced sunlight. People like sun - plants like sun. One downside is reduced agricultural production.
Grey skies, smiling atcha!
Submitted by Cosmo on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 2:49 PM PDT.
Why don't we work on what we contribute to global warming daily, and not jump to becoming lazy once again, while signing up for a quick fix , without really considering the myriad health, global, and climate effects positive and negative.
I don't appreciate the X patterns over the skies we see already from the chem trails, maybe they can stop that if we just change our actions.
I would appreciate some fresh air and sunshine once and a while.
Ugh, sorry I recommended
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 3:04 PM PDT.
Ugh, sorry I recommended your post. I was with you until you went on chem trail.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=rainbow+lady+sprinklers&oe=utf-8&r...
Ugh is right
Submitted by Cosmo on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 5:30 PM PDT.
I guess anyone who asks questions should be compared to some incompetent entity.
Or perhaps that's just your flawed logic.
Hi there
No, I think that anyone that
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 10:12 PM PDT.
No, I think that anyone that thinks there are chem trails is even nuttier than all the birfers, tenthers, anti-vaxxers, creationists put together.
That's you!
highlander
Submitted by golack (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 3:55 PM PDT.
wasn't this part of the last (bad) Highlander movie?
And there really isn't much of a debate about:
1. CO2 levels are going up
2. Significant portion of that increase due to human activity
3. Global temperatures are indeed increasing
4. We are getting better models about what is going on, but:
a. narrowing down regional effects can be tricky
b. a colder than expected year does not a trend make
c. we need even better models and more data
5. Yes, rising CO2 levels are indeed an example of (unplanned) geo-engineering
6. Better energy efficiency helps everyone--even if you don't accept Global warming (Tony Blair argument).
A major problem with adding
Submitted by Gilamon (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 6:49 PM PDT.
A major problem with adding sulfates to keep out sunlight and thinking this will be a real fix, is that the rising levels of carbon dioxide will continue to raise the acidity of the oceans. High acidity will affect any organisms that need calcium carbonate by dissolving their shells, causing major die offs low down in the food chain, etc.
Face facts, the US does what the US wants to do.
Submitted by RobertWaldmann on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 6:54 PM PDT.
I agree with your general conclusion that we should look into geoengineering after imposing cap and trade, that it should be done, if at all, in addition to emissions control not instead of emissions control.
However, I don't see any justification for your absolutely confident assertion that "geoengineering isn't something that a single country can pull off." Elsewhere in the post you guess that the costs would be in the billions. The number one enthusiast claims 150 m plus 100 m/year. Assuming he's off by a factor of 10, you get a cost that the USA can easily afford all by itself.
Other countries might not like that, but threaten war ?!? Refresh my memory, when was the last time a country threatened to make war on the USA ? It really isn't a good career move for the dictator who wants to die in bed.
The USA has spewed and is spewing amazing amounts of pollutants, including, by the way, SO_2, what would be so hard about spewing it at higher levels (pun intended) ?
Do you really think that. if the USA decided to build 18 mile high tubes in US territory and pump SO_2 up them, some country would stop us. Don't you think the US response would be, more or less, you and what alien star fleet ?
I mean think of all the crazy things we have gotten away with just in the past decade.
Do you really seriously think that the USA would *have* to negotiate with other countries about a project in the USA that would spread a pollutant over the world ? I mean that isn't even a violation of current international law (not that international law ever stopped us).
If we cover the globe with
Submitted by Marc (not verified) on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 8:11 PM PDT.
If we cover the globe with soot and the Indian monsoon season stops - do you think that they'll mind? There is a reason why you get global buy-in to ideas like this.
Most of these CO2 producing
Submitted by B on Mon Oct. 19, 2009 8:38 PM PDT.
Most of these CO2 producing fires are at low elevation. If we melt Antarctica and Greenland with soot and nuclear bombs we have a good chance of raising sea level and putting them out.
With sulfates there are too many side effects. You destroy the ozone layer and while you shift average temperatures -- greenhouse moderation of seasonal and diurnal temperatures remain. Nights and winters will be warmer.
"reducing CO2 really is the
Submitted by ed (not verified) on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 12:25 AM PDT.
"reducing CO2 really is the first best solution"
You need to explain why you think it's the "best solution" even if, as L&D claim, using geo-engineering would be orders of magnitude less expensive.
Ignorance is bliss. Stay happy.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 3:19 AM PDT.
Nuclear winter would have the added effect of pretty much eliminating all fossil fuel use on planet Earth. We have the technology, already in place, to make this happen.
Geoengineering is a non-option. Nature has been working on making our environment perfect for us and ALL of the other life on our planet for the past 4 billion years. So we think going to make it better with just a few years of study and some half baked ideas? Yeah, right! Ignore these fools.
reducing CO2 is best solution
Submitted by kevinv on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 6:01 AM PDT.
Why is reducing CO2 the best solution? Because it's simply reversing what got us into this problem. We know what a climate with less CO2 in it looks like. We don't know what a climate that has supher continually injected into it looks like because we've not done it before.
It's generally a bad idea to do wild experiments on your only test subject. Especially if you live on it and can't move somewhere else.
Additional problems with sulfer solution:
1) doesn't fix ocean acidification side effects of CO2 or other non-temp related issues
2) if sulpher injection is shut down (couple of fighter jets could do this) you're worse off than you were before (because the extra CO2 added to the system while offsetting with sulpher).
3) adding supher to atmosphere will still change climate. regions around the chimney may see a larger effect than those further away. global rain patterns can change (thereby changing a country's ability to support itself)
To summarize: things always
Submitted by Barbara (not verified) on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 6:41 AM PDT.
To summarize: things always seem simple when you have no idea what you are talking about. I see this daily in my four year old, who speaks with absolute conviction on everything and anything, his four year old confidence being predicated on not knowing the least little thing about which he speaks.
Twenty or however many years ago we were, by now, supposed to be getting around in personal air devices like the Jetsons and living in smart houses that would tuck us into bed at night, and cancer will have been cured and maybe even prevented through superengineered drugs and food.
Maybe geoengineering will evolve to help solve our carbon problem, but what's the chance that a single technological fix would work like a magic bullet, or that, on the way, it won't be beset by all the things that beset these other things -- complexities, cost, entrenched interests, adverse effects?
How could two educated people be so stupid and gullible?
Keep in mind, though, that
Submitted by Avatar (not verified) on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 7:09 AM PDT.
Keep in mind, though, that reducing CO2 has the same problems - hideous complexities, massively entrenched interests (pretty much every industry everywhere), and cost and adverse effects on a scale never before experienced in human endeavor (preventing India and China from industrializing would have a human cost that makes WW2 look like a minor blip).
Even if a geoengineering project has tremendous cost overruns, if it costs six orders of magnitude less than trying to turn around all industrial advancement everywhere, it could overrun by 10x or even 100x and we're still much better off.
This is, of course, assuming that models of global warming are accurate - models that are modeling processes billions of times more complicated than our little economy, including things we don't even pretend that we understand, mind you.
"Even if a geoengineering
Submitted by Barbara (not verified) on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 7:37 AM PDT.
"Even if a geoengineering project has tremendous cost overruns, if it costs six orders of magnitude less than trying to turn around all industrial advancement everywhere, it could overrun by 10x or even 100x and we're still much better off."
If, if, if . . . If we only knew enough to know anything we would know something for certain.
You have no idea. Neither do they or anyone else. The whole world wastes time and effort looking for the equivalent of scientific magic.
The other point is, that incremental improvements are often the predicate for radical improvements or breakthroughs -- for instance, how incremental advances in computing and telephone technology over time made the Internet possible, a far more radical construct than either alone. Tomorrow's geoengineering is likely to evolve out of today's efforts at carbon reduction and sequestration, and like personal jets, the idea of what a technology will look like is often a poor predictor for what will work or prove practical.
Science Fiction
Submitted by Trippp on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 9:43 AM PDT.
Barbara,
I agree. I have read enough science fiction to know this is science fiction.
I _like_ science fiction, I like reading what the world would be like if something fundamental changed, but it is useless to try to apply science fiction to the real world. The devil is always in the details and there are a zillion dead ends for every good path through the future.
Freaky Solution
Submitted by Al Candude (not verified) on Tue Oct. 20, 2009 12:09 PM PDT.
What a great technological fix for AGM!!! After we think up more "solutions" to fix
the damage caused by our "solutions" our planet will end up looking a lot like
Michael Jackson's face!
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
