Daily Kos

View Story | 59 comments

  •  In very leery of geoengineering solitions (11+ / 0-)

    listening to the BBC the other morning, I heard one if their "experts" complain about solar energy, saying that he was "never going to support some energy plan that required him to climb on his roof to clean up bird shit" when geoengineering would let him keep "throwing the switch on the wall" like always.

    That idea, that it's better to try giant experiments with the planet than suffer the least inconvenience, has colored my view of the debate.

    •  DING! We have a winner!!! (7+ / 0-)

      That idea, that it's better to try giant experiments with the planet than suffer the least inconvenience,

      ....is absolutely INSANE!

      I don't know where we got the grand idea that we're entitled to a life of luxury and convenience... oh wait, we're told that every day by marketeers..

      If you're on a boat, in the middle of the ocean, you don't drill holes in the hull expecting it to stay afloat.  You respect the vessel on which you travel.
      Same must apply for the Earth.

      •  ditto that, and (4+ / 0-)

        The big eco-engineering projects make me wary because of the first principle of complex systems:  "you can't do one thing."  There are ALWAYS unforeseen, unancticipated, usually quite dramatically negative consequences.  Remember when the Army Corps of Engineers thought that straightening the Mississippi was a good idea?  Result:  easier ship passage upriver, just as planned, but also sediment starvation of the bayous, which contributed to their demise, which deprived New Orleans of its marshland buffers against storm surges; and also, sediment load shooting out into the Gulf, which (given the amount of fertilizer run-off that the sediment contains) contributed to the dying off of the fisheries in the Gulf.  Just say no to planetary tinkering!

        •  Partially that is why the 'win-win-win' (0+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          netguyct

          that I suggest ... we should do things that (seem?) to make sense for other reasons that also help with global warming. Reflective roofing will reduce energy use & save building owners money, while reducing heat island effect & contributing to reducing temperatures.  It makes sense on multiple levels.  Permaculture, helping to green some areas (or improve productivity), also seems to make sense. Etc down my list.

    •  Key challenge ... (4+ / 0-)

      "throwing the switch on the wall" ... So, does he really care if his electricity comes from offshore wind, nuclear power, or solar CSP? And, he can pay a little more because he doesn't want to crawl on the roof.  

      And, I am very leary of geoengineering, as well.  Note my "win-win-win" -- geoengineering efforts that make sense are those that make sense for other reasons.  Such as Terra Preta or white roofing ...

    •  The Geritol Solution (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      A Siegel, Snarcalita

      Apparently discredited now, but back 15 or 20 years ago, there was this idea that in many parts of the ocean, iron was the limiting factor to phytoplankton growth.  That if we could just spread very very fine iron dust in those areas, there would be more carbon sequestration.

      There's been some goofy ideas cooked up along the way.

      As to the permaculture in the diary?  A good notion, but perhaps not with the idea of major transformation.  But thought to planting fruit trees and wind breaks and so on are not bad ideas.  Like clotheslines:  Small things, but if adopted widely, those small steps can make a difference.

      They certainly did make a difference during WWII, when there was rationing, and everyone was encouraged to grow a "victory garden".  I trust incremental small changes in habit more than grand schemes.

      Though my more pessimistic side figures the planet's best hope is to put the humans in check via some major pandemic virus of some sort or another.

      John McCain voted against health care for kids.

      by Land of Enchantment on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:24:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Worth noting (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      elfling, A Siegel, edison

      that we've been most successful at geoengineering when we least intend to. Driving to the suburban $5 Happy Meal hits the trifecta.

      I think the one with the best shot is biochar. White roofs are a good idea, though depending where you are there may be better uses (greenery, PV).

      •  Green Roofs are tremendous ... (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        alefnot, offgrid, Uncle Bob

        and, reflective roofing work well with PV / solar systems if it is a well designed roof (reflecting the additional radiation into the solar system).

        •  sort of a question (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          MarkInSanFran, A Siegel

          I don't see how reflective roofs go with PV, at least the typical systems which pretty much cover the available surface.  What am I missing?

          White roofs may have some problems.  When checking into new roofs I was repeatedly told that light colored roofing would quickly get dirty.  Now, if this is a case of "looking dirty" it may be more of a social issue than technical, but from having SnoCoated a roof in the past I know that it does darken fairly quickly.   It was still lighter than some roofing, but I'm not sure that the values used for that albedo report would hold true for long.

          •  High albedo roofing does not have to be white (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            A Siegel, wondering if

            Although white is obviously high albedo, if you shop for metal roofing, they will thoughtfully give you ratings on reflectivity for all of them. You can engineer coatings to do some interesting things. It turns out that red is also a very good color for heat reflectivity in metal roofs.

            In any case, I think metal roofing, especially when chosen with heat reflectivity in mind, is a good investment for an individual homeowner. Long life, eases AC load. It also is recyclable.

            Landscaping is a factor, too. Choosing light concrete instead of black asphalt. Using pavers with permeable joints. Green roofs, as in covered with plants, are also good for heat. They're high maintenance, but if they can work in Chicago, they should work anywhere. Many options to choose from.

            Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

            by elfling on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  sudder at the cost of metal roofs (0+ / 0-)

              but then AC is not much of a concern around here, and roofs tend to go green in a few years unless you work to keep the moss off.

              Red - uh, considering how much of the solar spectrum is shorter than red-orange and how hot brick gets in the sun, I'm a bit surprised.

              While light concrete does help, roofs were what started the thread so I was focusing on that.  Plants have a lower albedo than concrete, 5 to 10 vs 20 to 40, it's the transpiration keeping them cool that does the work.  

          •  Two points. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            wondering if
            1. Reflective roofs don't have to be white. And, by the way, reflectivity doesn't necessarily need to be on the roof. I, for example, have a radiant barrier inside the roof that (somewhat) improves the reflection of radiant heat back into space.
            1. Re solar: think "mirror", dependent on roof design/angles, the reflective roof can be reflective solar onto the solar system (PV, CSP, DHW, etc) and thus increasing the amount of radiation from which the system is drawing power.
      •  Yeah! (0+ / 0-)

        I think the one with the best shot is biochar.

    •  things are bad enough (0+ / 0-)

      that as I see it, we're going to have to replace fossil fuel, modify our lifestyles, increase energy efficiency and we need to look at geoengineering technologies if we're going to get a handle on the problem.

      Remember, the official IGCC projections have been consistently shown as wildly optimistic, as I recall, Greenland wasn't supposed to start melting for another 100 years.

      There will be plenty of inconvenience to go around whether we go with geoengineering or not.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:24:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 59 comments