Daily Kos

Geoengineering: basic principles, some thoughts, some questions

Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:06:35 PM PDT

In the face of the potential for catastrophic climate change and global warming, "geo-engineering" is an arena getting a little attention and some press, such as W Broad, NYT Times

Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability".

One can argue that all efforts to control carbon emissions (to reverse past emissions) falls within GeoEngineering, but that is not the general context of consideration, which often focuses on efforts that would, somehow, have a direct impact on Earth's temperatures (and not, necessarily, on carbon loads).

One step back question, which does not necessarily seem to occur in many conversation, is what principles should guide Geo-Engineering efforts and prioritization of their potential.

Some thoughts as to principles

The core principle should be: win-win-win.  A proposal that, in a systems of systems effort, provides multiple wins and does not solely address temperature.  Thus, a proposal that offers real potential for improving economy, reducing carbon, and contributing to reduced temperature (both directly, somehow, and indirectly through reduced carbon loads or carbon capture) would seem to merit greater prioritization than high-cost efforts that would solely impact "temperature" but not impact (or worsen) the carbon load equation.

Risk factors must be placed into the equation.   How "known" are the system-of-system implications? Does it create other problems while "solving" (or ameliorating or delaying) temperature challenges?

And, can the response be done quickly, affordable, and in a distributed fashion?

These seem to be some questions that can be asked to see whether 'win-win-win' is possible.

Looking at options:  Five "traditional" proposals

Wikipediaprovides five examples of GeoEngineering

  • Mirrors in space: proposed by Roger Angel with the purpose to deflect a percentage of solar sunlight into space, using mirrors floating around the earth in orbit.


While each is interesting (even intriguing) in its own way(s), these seem to (across the board) fail the "win-win-win" equation process (although, to be honest, the artificial trees are rather interesting to consider).  The space mirrors would be tremendously (prohibitively) expensive and do nothing about carbon loads (and, potentially, actually worsen them).  The Sulphur risks more acid rain for a limited gain in slowing warming trends.  The Iron Seeding seems to have limited results in testing and has uncertain long-term prospects.  Cloud-Seeding, again, is a net carbon cost (the energy to run the system) with some uncertainty over the impact.  Each of these merits more attention than one summary paragraph can provide, but to summarize: these are not win-win-win strategies.

Do Geo-Engineering Win-Win-Win Spaces Exist?

Okay, I've set out a few ideas on principles, created a challenge.  Is it a challenge that can realistically be met.  Simply put:  yes!  Here are several paths to help contribute to dealing with temperature levels that go to a positive space in other arenas.

Reflective Roofing:  A typical 'asphalt' shingle/such roof, with a very low albedo factor (reflectivity) absorb substantial amounts of solar radiation through the year.  Shifting to a reflective roofing material can send much of that solar radiation back to space. It is also highly cost effective because it can reduce air conditioning loads and increase roof longevity.  Some payback analysis suggests that, when compared to 'traditional' roofing, reflective roofs can pay back the added cost in just a few weeks.  Now, what about the heat/cooling impact globally?

The Earth has an albedo of 0.29, meaning that it reflects 29 per cent of the sunlight that falls upon it. With an albedo of 0.1, towns absorb more sunlight than the global average. Painting all roofs white could nudge the Earth's albedo from 0.29 towards 0.30. According to a very simple "zero-dimensional" model of the Earth, this would lead to a drop in global temperature of up to 1 °C, almost exactly cancelling out the global warming that has taken place since the start of the industrial revolution. A zero-dimensional model, however, excludes the atmosphere and, crucially, the role of clouds. [But!] It would be interesting to see if more sophisticated models predict a similar magnitude of cooling.

As much as 1 degree centigrade via white roofing!  Perhaps it is time to start changing building codes and reflecting some sun back to space.  And, remember, this will lower carbon loads through energy efficiency and reduced roofing replacement requirements in out years. And, another win element: this can be done by almost any organization, any government, any individual ... now. And, they will save money while helping to save the planet's habilitability.

Permaculture:  We can reclaim deserts through inexpensive but quite thoughtful practices, reducing the heat loads in these areas, capturing carbon, and fostering economic activity.  Don't believe me?  Take a few moments to watch this.  

Again, permaculture can be used for good effect almost anywhere, at low cost with a high benefit.  What are we waiting for?

Agrichar / Biochar / Terra Preta:   Very simply, we have the potential for a carbon-negative fuelthat will, over time, also foster improve fertility in soil.  Very simply, gasification of biomass can be combined with agricultural practices to create energy, have the waste plowed back into the soil to improve fertility (while reducing fertilizer requirements), and have some of the carbon from each of these cycles captured in the soil.  "[T]he great advantage of biochar is the fact that the technique can be applied world-wide on agricultual soils, and even by rural communities in the developing world because it is relatively low tech." This is a highly promising arena that is getting attention, but perhaps not enough.  For some additional discussion, for example, see: Energize America (also); Biochar: The New Frontier; The pay dirt of El Dorado; International Biochar Initiative; Birth of a New Wedge; and Terra Preta for Carbon Reduction.

Roaring 40s:  Remember the ice cube being dropped in the ocean to solve Global Warming in Futurama?  Maybe this wasn't total lunacy. The Roaring 40s in the southern hemisphere have tremendous wind resources, wind resources that are Stranded Wind.  Wind farms, perhaps floating wind farms, can be set up in these great winds to make ammonia to be used for fuel (and perhaps hydrogen and perhaps be used to support industrial processes in these areas).  The process of making this ammonia will remove heat energy from the oceans and, voila, contribute to ice formation.

Win-Win-Win

Geo-Engineering is staring us in the face. But, we can pursue "Geo-Engineering" along win-win-win paths, such that they will more than 'pay for themselves' while helping to moderate temperature through the decades (centuries) of abnormally high carbon loads in the atmosphere.

Tags: geo-engineering, global warming, climate change, energy, Rescued, teaching (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 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 ]

    •  I get into this a lot (3+ / 0-)

      with people who love the idea of moving into space.

      I tell them that any solution that makes any non-terran habitat more habitable will have that much more efficacy making Earth more habitable.

      Short form - the paradox of space exploration is that the more capable we become at it, the lower the incentive as the same techniques render more of the Earth available for economic activity.

      •  That sounds almost like something... (0+ / 0-)

        ...from Arthur C. Clarke.  However, I rather doubt that the the future he envisioned in The Deep Range is likely ever to come to pass.

        "Iraq: the bravest 1% fighting for the richest 1%." ~ An Unknown Kossack.

        by Neon Vincent on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:29:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Settlement of Antarctica, the Moon and the Seas (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Neon Vincent

          will likely occur almost simultaneously, ditto development of cislunar space.

          It will take another generation minimum to gear up for more than cursory exploration and development of the planets.

          But all the worlds (with solid surfaces) but Mercury and Venus should have settlements on them by 2100.

          And regardless of that, almost all of humanity will remain ensconced on the Earth.

      •  I disagree with (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        zeke L, A Siegel

        that claim

        the paradox of space exploration is that the more capable we become at it, the lower the incentive as the same techniques render more of the Earth available for economic activity.

        I would very much argue with that claim.  As you tap into extra solar resources, you can expand you basis on earth.  Further, technology developed and manufactured in space will have applications her on earth.  

        Spaceflight helps us make the earth better.

        •  you're both right, kinda (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          A Siegel

          clearly as we learn how to actually live in space (as opposed to just traveling there) we will be advancing our knowledge of how to maintain communities on earth that don't have massive negative impact on earth's biosphere and resources.

          that is to say, once you've learned how to recycle all the water for an o'neill cylinder completely and effectively, you've basically figured out how to do the same for a southern california suburb.

          but it doesn't necessarily follow that we will be putting colony domes on K2 instead of asteroids.  for one thing, all kinds of raw materials would be available in a space environment that would be extremely difficult to obtain on earth.  and once you're talking about living in self-contained environments, space is actually a more friendly place to do that.  no weather.  abundant energy.  constant conditions.

          and of course, less energy involved in getting stuff from its source to your community.

          let's face it: gravity sucks.  with no known way to negate it, an intelligent species would simply avoid it as much as possible during transport and manufacturing operations.

          l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

          by zeke L on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:17:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  so you did. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            cskendrick

            Unfortunately, thats not how I read it - in my defense, I was arguing someplace else about space, at the time, and more than a little tired (I have a big space series starting monday).

            My apologizes

            •  You're a strong proponent of space exploration (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              FerrisValyn

              But it's the same as it has been since Tsiolkovsky and Goddard and Braun were playing with rockets -- the advances made in making getting there possible enhance quality of life here on Earth.

              Earth is part of space, and vice-versa. There is no transcendence, and whatever happens here will always impact what happens there.

              The simplest thing I can think of is this one - the hope that we can seed Earthlife (read: humanity) elsewhere in the cosmos, just in case something bad happens here.

              Thing is, anything that can deliver a colony to another world can deliver a WMD that much more efficiently.

    •  I'd still like the 3rd industrial revolution (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      zeke L, A Siegel, FerrisValyn

      The Third Industrial Revolution was a concept developed by G. Harry Stine and others decades ago when America still looked like it might have a viable space program Real Soon Now.

      The concept is simple: develop a transportation infrastructure that makes access to space easy, affordable, and frequent. Build solar power satellites to capture energy in space by the gigawatt and beam it down to wherever it is needed on the ground. Use that energy to also obtain physical resources already in space - the moon, asteroids, etc. and use them to replace extraction industries on earth. Create an orbital infrastructure to move energy/resource intensive industries off the planet, and start turning the earth into a park.

      We could start within 5 years if the late Robert Bussard'snew approach to nuclear fusion was applied to spacecraft propulsion systems.

      Of course, if we actually built an electrostatic confinement fusion reactor, we'd also be solving our energy problems right here on the ground.

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What is "centigrade"? (0+ / 0-)

      Great diary, btw! You must be even older than me :-)

      Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

      by MarkInSanFran on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:13:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Green roofs (4+ / 0-)

    Have read of planting grass on roofs to absorb the sunlight and turn it into plant matter. Also, roof top greenhouses to absorb the sunlight and produce food locally. This would also reduce transportation effects as food would be grown where it is consumed.

    Thanks for another great diary.

  •  ammonia process seems best (3+ / 0-)

    The ammonia creation process seems best - albedo increases, the ammonia produced is a fuel (won't be hauling hydrogen out of the arctic/anarctic, its too hard to handle), and they're going to develop in the arctic no matter what, so it might as well be something that helps rather than something that exhumes more carbon.

      I am, of course, a bit biased, as I've covered this topic before, but it is the only one I've seen so far that is not only scalable but energy positive in terms of what it provides our society.

  •  The difference (3+ / 0-)

    between the ideas you mention and the ones Wikipedia mentions are that the wikipedia ones are significantly beyond our technical competence at this point and have the potential for unknown effects.

    The ones you have mentioned don't have the potential for unknown effects and, except for the last one, seem technically feasible, currently.

  •  Lovelock's perspective (5+ / 0-)

    As quoted here

    As a last resort, to keep the planet even marginally habitable, Lovelock believes that humans may be forced to manipulate the Earth's climate by erecting solar shades in space or building devices to strip huge quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Although he views large-scale geoengineering as an act of profound hubris -- "I would sooner expect a goat to succeed as a gardener than expect humans to become stewards of the Earth" -- he thinks it may be necessary as an emergency measure, much like kidney dialysis is necessary to a person whose health is failing. In fact, it was Lovelock who inspired his friend Richard Branson to put up a $25 million prize for the Virgin Earth Challenge, which will be awarded to the first person who can figure out a commercially viable way of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. As a judge in the contest, Lovelock is not eligible to win, but he's intrigued by the challenge. His latest thought: suspend hundreds of thousands of 600-foot-long vertical pipes in the tropical oceans, put a valve at the bottom of each pipe and allow deep, nutrient-rich water to be pumped to the surface by wave action. Nutrients from the deep water would increase algae bloom, which would suck up carbon dioxide and help cool the planet.

    •  reading that article (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      changed my mind about geoengineering. It isn't about relieving us from the inconvenience of changing over from fossil fuels or keeping Las Vegas alive, it's about staying alive for humans on this planet.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:48:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Understanding and assisting natural systems (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, netguyct, Neon Vincent

    seems a safer approach than the more high tech industrial interference scenarios. I had heard of the reflective roofs, greening the desert, and like all ideas that improve soil while supplying other benefits (energy in the case of biochar), but I hadn't heard of amonia from the polar winds.

    Intentionally changing the biochemistry of the earth with iron and sulfur in the hope it will cool things down seems fraught with the same kind of risks we were unaware of with burning oil and coal 50 to 100 years ago, I don't trust that we understand the complex chains of events that could develop. Using wind won't hurt anything but I don't know about amonia as a fuel and will have to read the linked material before I know enough to make up my mind about that.

    I think, in addition to rapid conversion to all forms of non polluting renewable energy generation we should invest massively in growing as much vegetation on as much land as possible even if that means using desalinated water to do it. Plants are the producers of life in our world as food and as co2 eaters and o2 generators. If we focus more on what is good for plants and grow more of them we are amplifying a system that has made life possible for a long time, I don't think we can do better with technology in the next few decades.

    Love = Awareness of mutually beneficial exchange across semi-permeable boundaries. Political and economic systems either amplify or inhibit Love.

    by Bob Guyer on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:14:36 PM PDT

  •  win, win, win, uncomfortable with economy winning (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, Neon Vincent

    as an equal part of the equation. If the economy wins as part of the equation does that mean increased economic activity results in increased consumption? If we would factor the win on the economic side of the equation with the costs to the environment I would be more comfortable with the inclusion of an economic win in the equation.

    Our economic system is constructed to completely ignore environmental costs, as it also ignores any social costs outside the monetized transaction that is counted when people talk about the economy. If an environmental  benefit is included I suppose if it is a net total environmental benefit that helps to balance the equation, but I am more concerned about our ecological situation than costs to the economy. The economy has a lot of headroom to absorb costs, at this point the climate related environment does not. Monetizing the two different costs makes the assumption that we are accurately reflecting the environmental costs, or that it is possible to equate the costs in monetary terms. If there was no economic cost, or a small, or moderate, economic loss, would some of the mitigation strategies become not worth doing? I can imagine situations where something is worth doing for its beneficial effect on the life giving capacity of the environment that does not produce a direct economic benefit.

    I think a reinvestment in natural capital that would not stimulate more economic growth is a legitimate good because such an investment is in support of the living base out of which economic activity becomes possible once conscious life develops and creates technology. In other words the existence of biological life precedes and trumps the derivative economic activity of one species of life in the living system. As a political reality we have to take effects on economic outcomes into account and costs should be minimized but life is more important and if life is served by an investment in its infrastructure it is worth making for its own sake.

    Love = Awareness of mutually beneficial exchange across semi-permeable boundaries. Political and economic systems either amplify or inhibit Love.

    by Bob Guyer on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:35:18 PM PDT

    •  But "what is economy"? (4+ / 0-)

      How about, for example, permaculture fostering agricultural activity in an area which might have poor to little productivity today? And, doing so while taking carbon out of the atmosphere, reforesting / replanting areas, and providing some cooling?

      Now, the "economic" is that it would not be the "cost" to the economy of, for example, the solar shades.  While the $trillions would create jobs, would that economic activity have a productive element to it in terms of strengthening society?

    •  And ... (3+ / 0-)

      as per my discussion yesterday re coal, a key challenge is seeking a more holistic definition of "economic" and "economy" to, for example, add 'natural capital' into the equations.

      •  I may be reading you wrong, to me economy means (3+ / 0-)

        the formal economy that results in the macro economic indicator of GDP growth or decline. A whole lot of exchange and activity that benefits people is not included in that meaning of the term "economy".

        I don't disagree with your general point that where there are benefits all around the ideas sort out neatly in much the way you outlined them. I really don't have any disagreement with the ideas you thought met the win, win, win criteria and that they merit doing, that would be great. I just think that the proportion of costs and benefits in the 3 areas could work out so that it would in some circumstances make sense to do something that would not benefit the economy or would harm it, when economy is narrowly defined, but the wins in the other two areas would so large that the economic cost would seem small in comparison.

        I know you are pulling in the right direction and I am with you there. I have problems with the assumptions underlying our economic system which don't take anything outside its perspective, private profit is the only value, as having value. In my view this perspective is a dominant social mind set that interferes with accurately perceiving the value of our biological/ecological foundation. So when the economy is mentioned I feel the scales of valuation tilting into a way of viewing the world where economic activity, in the narrow sense, views the value of the natural world with casual indifference and the elevates the value of economic activity beyond what it reasonably should be.

        I think I was not picking up on your true meaning and getting caught up in what I see as the general bias toward unrealistic elevation of the value placed on economic activity and a corresponding denigration of the value of our natural living world.

        My value system has been changing and I now see the value of the natural world, human life included, as a foundational element of inherent and irreducible value. The next level of value for me is economic activity up to the point where it produces more human happiness and does not significantly degrade the foundation of life. For me economic activity beyond the point of improved general human happiness that damages the foundation of life is not worth doing and it is precisely that type of activity which our economic system supports gleefully.

        Love = Awareness of mutually beneficial exchange across semi-permeable boundaries. Political and economic systems either amplify or inhibit Love.

        by Bob Guyer on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:30:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  one example of geoengeneering already in place (0+ / 0-)

    once useful, no giving us problems -

    the changes wrought by increased agriculture, deforestation, burning, and methane generation from cattle and rice paddies. are thought by some to have avoided the start of another ice age, at least of a minor one.  The "Little Ice Age" of the 16th into 19th century could have been the last gasp of the potential larger one before it was overwhelmed by our changes to the climate (although volcanic activity may have played a role).

  •  A Siegel, I'd like to argue that (0+ / 0-)

    the space mirrors can be a win-win-win, IF adopted in conjunction with other methods.

    First, concerning the price to space - there is AMPLE evidence that we will soon see a major change in cost to space.  If you look at the work that is going on in the NewSpace Industry, from places like SpaceX, Scaled Composites, XCOR, Armadillo Aerospace, and others, we are seeing the approach of something that can be considered cheap access.  The key is to utilize that to help us.  

    Thus, with cheap access to space, the mirrors become very practical.  However, without doing more than just moderating the temperature, I agree they don't help.  Then we need to move rapidly towards clean energy (which I would argue the best is space based solar power), followed by pursuing something like the artificial trees suggestion.  

    These 3 things, can help us - first to stem the tide of climbing temperatures, then to move us away from using fossil fuels, and then finaly cleaning up.

    And it helps the economy, because it allows for it to expand beyond the earth.

    •  but the cost of energy (0+ / 0-)

      It costs money, yes, to boost things into space, and because money is a human invention--a social construct--we can construct prices in various ways.  It might actually be getting less expensive in dollars to "shoot things into space." (The dollar is falling all over the place.  All kinds of things are getting cheaper in Euros all the time...)  But human tinkering with economic arrangements won't change the ENGERY costs of boosting things up off the earth, against gravity-that's physics.  We can't change the law of gravity, can't change the amount of actual work it takes to lift a given payload into orbit.  And energy is going to do nothing but get more expensive, as we use up the planet's scarce stock of past stored solar income (aka, as we hit peak oil).  Do the calculations about cost of this big mirror project compute the cost in dollars, or in calories expended?  

      •  Space can provide the energy (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        zeke L

        we need, and so that won't be an issue.  Energy doesn't have to get more expensive.  Energy only gets more expensive if we assume a finite amount of it, and we are only forced into that situation if we limit ourselves to just operating on this planet.  

        If instead, we expand, to invest in both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial resources, like space-based solar power, we won't be faced with the issue of limited energy resources, that means the energy price is going up.  

        YEs, it takes energy - the question is, just how limited is our energy, actually?  I'd argue, if we invest in off-planet resources, as well as on planet resources, we aren't limited at all.

      •  while we can't change the energy cost (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        A Siegel

        of getting into orbit, rockets are a very expensive way to buy transportation energy.

        If one can buy energy for transportation to orbit from an electric utility, the energy cost for getting into orbit drops to dollars per pound from thousands (Space Shuttle) or hundreds of dollars a pound. (private space ventures)

        The space elevator and orbital-velocity railguns are just two of the proposed methods of making it possible to replace rockets.

        What they have in common is fixed, expensive capitalizable structures instead of expendible devices for orbital transportation. The economic analogy would be the building of the US railroad system to solve the same problem as applied to getting access to US resources.

        Building one would make building a solar power satellite network and the space-based industrial infrastructure to support building the network and to make it possible to use the rest of the solar system for raw materials a whole lot cheaper.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:57:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Shading (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      FerrisValyn

      somehow associated with Space-Based Solar (which I mentioned in my diary the other day re eliminating coal, or at least in posts within it) becomes a 'win-win-win' potential strategy.

  •  I'm a Terra Preta fan ... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    However, this seems to be lying fallow at the moment: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/...

    Also of interest: http://truthseekerforum.com/...

    Excellent diary, A Siegel!!

  •  Great diary (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    Great diary.  After reading about the Overdue Glaciation hypothesis (google it) by Ruddiman which states that we would currently be in an ice age had we not began clearing trees 5000 years ago, pumping out methane from rice paddies 8000 years ago and more recently burning fossil fuels, I determined that geoengineering may be necessary.  I should mention that this is still only a hypothesis.  Unfortunately, we have gone too far beyond staving off an ice age in to territory with no CO2 analog which is quite scary.  I'm not against geoengineering per se, it may be the only way we can stop this, but it has to be studied and all precautions taken.  Humans wouldn't be here if we hadn't begun manipulating our landscape and using tools.  No sense in stopping now.    

  •  Some good ideas here! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    And I think it's critical for people to do what you're doing and begin to consider ways we can take true control of our planet's environmental status. We are capable of doing the damage, we're capable of doing other things as well.

    About the roofing idea - will homes with reflective roofing require additional heating to stay warm, as they're reflecting more of the sun's input? I'm not too clear on how much heating comes from the sun in the average home (I suppose it also varies by region). It seems that this may offset some of the gains from the albedo increase (as additional energy will be used for heating), although with true renewable energy sources that shouldn't matter much either.

    •  RE the heating ... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      DynamicUno

      this is a year round issue, need to look at totality.  Clearly, amount of radiant heat is greater in summer than in winter. Thus, the savings in reduced cooling loads are far greater than the winter heating requirements.  But, yes, there will be an increased heating load demand which slightly offsets a portion of the energy savings from the summer savings.

      PS:  By the way, one reason reflective roofs have value is that they have lower extreme temperature swings, which stresses the roof less, which leads to lower duration (on average) of the roofing, thus requiring less frequent maintenance/replacement.  A little more upfront for far lower costs through life-cycle.

  •  I added the 'teaching' tag (0+ / 0-)

    and will include this in "Daily Kos University" at around 9:05 AM Eastern time, Saturday

    Stop on by!  No fees, no grades, no tests, just learning!

Permalink | 59 comments