Bring It On!

A Workable Response to Global Warming?

February 18th, 2007 | by Craig R. Harmon |
Benford has a proposal that possesses the advantages of being both one of the simplest planet-cooling technologies so far suggested and being initially testable in a local context. He suggests suspension of tiny, harmless particles (sized at one-third of a micron) at about 80,000 feet up in the stratosphere. These particles could be composed of diatomaceous earth. “That’s silicon dioxide, which is chemically inert, cheap as earth, and readily crushable to the size we want,” Benford says. This could initially be tested, he says, over the Arctic, where warming is already considerable and where few human beings live. Arctic atmospheric circulation patterns would mostly confine the deployed particles around the North Pole. An initial experiment could occur north of 70 degrees latitude, over the Arctic Sea and outside national boundaries. “The fact that such an experiment is reversible is just as important as the fact that it’s regional,” says Benford.

Is Benford’s proposal realistic? According to Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist at Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, “It appears as if any small particle would do the trick in the necessary quantities. I’ve done a number of computer simulations of what the climate response would be of reflecting sunlight, and all of them indicate that it would work quite well.” He adds, “I wouldn’t look to these geoengineering schemes as part of normal policy response, but if bad things start to happen quickly, then people will demand something be done quickly.”

Given that our social systems would crash without the economic growth that depends on the existing energy infrastructure that we have, Benford personally believes that governments can’t be counted on to develop and deploy alternatives: “Anybody who thinks governments are suddenly going to leap into action is dreaming.” Benford says that one of the advantages of his scheme is that it could be implemented unilaterally by private parties. “Applying these technologies in the Arctic zone or even over the whole planet would be so cheap that many private parties could do it on their own. That’s really a dangerous idea because it suggests the primary actor in this drama will not be the nation-state anymore. You could do this for a hundred million bucks a year. You could do the whole planet for a couple of billion. That’s amazingly cheap.

Heck…at a couple billion, it could easily be funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 8 Responses to “A Workable Response to Global Warming?”

  2. By SteveIL on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

    You know, I forgot to add this in my most recent post.  Did you get this from Instapundit.com?

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

    Yeh. That’s where I saw it first.

  4. By steve on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

    It’s be hilarious if it came down to some conservatives solving the problem.

    I noticed a decline in my electric bill switching to fluorescents in my house… perhaps this makes up for the Hummer?

  5. By Jersey McJones on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

    Not only would it be hilarious, but it would be great.  On the other hand, sweeping the dirt under the rug (or spraying it up into the stratosphere) might lead to other, possibly bigger problems on down the road. 

    But, good man, Steve, on the fluorescents.  I’ve been doing that myself and the results are great.  But no, it does not make up for a Hummer - unless, of course, your worry about the safety of your kid on all those Hummer-filled roads are what you have in mind… 

    (That’s why we need governmental regulation, by the way)

    JMJ

  6. By steve on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

    Yeah… then we get to finally try out that 10th Amendment eh Jersey?

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

    Jersey,

    That was my thought — the spraying stuff into the stratosphere. I thought of the old song, “What goes up must come down” and what would happen when all that “harmless” stuff were breathed in? Another question I had about it was that the article said that it was a reversible process but how? They didn’t say.

  8. By Jersey McJones on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

    Exactamente guys.

    JMJ

  9. By Jersey McJones on Feb 19, 2007 | Reply

    That’s what the governator’s doin’, eh Steve?

    JMJ

Post a Comment