RSS Feed
July 21st, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
If we must research climate engineering, sucking carbon dioxide out of the air ought to be higher up our list of priorities
CLIMATE engineering experiments have an unfortunate habit of going wrong before they get going. Earlier this year, a project to test the feasibility of pumping sun-blocking particles into the stratosphere was cancelled after a mix-up over intellectual-property rights. Another high-profile test – of dumping iron particles into the ocean to stimulate plankton growth – failed miserably after being disrupted by protesters.
Such failures may be a source of satisfaction for those who find the idea of engineering the climate abhorrent. But the unpalatable truth is that we need to find out what works. There now appears to be little chance of avoiding at least 2 °C of warming over pre-industrial levels. At some point we may have to try to engineer our way out of trouble.
That is why long-awaited results from an ocean fertilisation test are good news (see “Geoengineering with iron might work after all”). The technology has always looked promising but has acquired a bad reputation, not least because companies have tried to use it as a means of making a profit through carbon credits.
Now a publicly funded test has shown that the technology can work. It is not a panacea: at best it might soak up a tenth of emissions, and the effects of doing it on a large scale are not known. But it is something.
The results should also put CO2 removal more generally back into the frame. For too long, this form of geoengineering has been overshadowed by sun-blockers. In 2009, for example, the Royal Society reported that aerosols sprayed into the sky were one of the cheapest and most effective methods. CO2 removal generally scored worse on both counts.
But cost and effectiveness are not everything. Sunshades leave the root problem unsolved and would be hard to stop once started. For those reasons alone, CO2 sinks deserve a chance.
They aren’t getting it. The “new” data came from an experiment carried out in 2004. Funding for more tests, or even modelling, is virtually non-existent. Meanwhile, sunshade research attracts most of the cash. If we must research climate engineering – and sadly we must – we should at least give all the options a fair crack of the whip.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Elephant In The Room
Thu Jul 19 16:50:57 BST 2012 by Paul Howard
The FAO has reported that livestock production is human’s top sector for global warming gas emissions (and most other problematic environmental impacts), and the Worldwatch Institute responded with a report finding livestock produciton to actually be more than half of the total human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. It seems that people will propose any crazy thing with unpredictable results but will never agree to the simple solution of the civilized world reducing meat consumption to a minimum.
Elephant In The Room
Thu Jul 19 17:49:08 BST 2012 by TwoZeroOZ
This is simply false.
Livestock account for around 6-7% of all human emissions. The majority of which is from methane emissions. Human-made methane is only about 15% of the problem.
Co2 plays a far bigger role in global warming, and the majority of that comes from energy and heat production, transportation, and material industries(cement, iron, etc)
Elephant In The Room
Thu Jul 19 18:36:59 BST 2012 by JJ
While livestock does contribute only a fraction of GHG emissions, the methane that is generated is 80 times more potent (though much more transient) than CO2. With the “fracking” for natural gas deposits, more methane is being released into the atmosphere by accident. Furthermore, the methane stored in permafrost and clathrates is released at increasing rates as the climate warms.
Both Paul and TwoZeroOZ are astute to notice a few different aspects of our climate problem. But as the author of this opinion alludes to, it is difficult to address the entrenched interests that are invested in the legacy infrastructure of our global civilization.
Retrofitting our global economy to deal with this problem is not as simple as switching to “clean (fill-in-the-blank)”. The set of solutions must entail building value (and carbon) in natural systems and extracting it in both profitable and sustainable ways.
Extreme Conservationism
Sat Jul 21 05:57:33 BST 2012 by Damir Ibrisimovic
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20083004-17248.html
I am glad that the issue of existing levels of atmospheric CO2 has been raised. This is quite in line with my previous comment at: (long URL – click here). It is now obvious that the nature cannot cope with our ever increasing pollution – on its own…
It is, therefore, astonishing that such initiatives are blocked by conservationists at all levels. Such (rather paranoid) reactions to constructive initiatives beg a question: What would you propose instead?
It is easy to find faults in any action. That is a common excuse for doing nothing. (Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?)
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the “Report” link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
