geoengineering

To solving our global warming problem

Geo-engineering is "the intentional large scale manipulation of the global environment" (PDF) to counteract the effects of global warming, which itself was unintentional geo-engineering -- although today you'd have to say global warming is intentional, since everybody now knows what we're doing to the planet.

But I digress. We're screwing up the planet with unrestricted greenhouse-gas emissions, and the question is, do we want to try to fix that problem by gambling on some other large-scale effort to manipulate the climate, or should we just try to restrict emissions? It's as if the doctor says you have a disease that can definitely be cured by diet and exercise, but you opt for expensive chemotherapy -- even though the doctor can't guarantee the results but is pretty certain the side effects would be as bad as the disease.

Smacking down a bad idea

I know you've all been eagerly waiting for this (don't worry, I don't have many more rules). I got sidetracked by last week's offset hearing.

Offset projects should deliver climate benefits with high confidence -- that's a key reason trees make lousy offsets, especially non-urban, non-tropical trees. An even more dubious source of offsets is geo-engineering, which is "the intentional large scale manipulation of the global environment" (PDF) to counteract the effects of global warming.

As John Holdren, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, noted in 2006 (PDF), "The 'geo-engineering' approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."

The new alchemy: Turning iron particles into gelt

Turns out we here at Grist got a preview of his "fringe environmentalist" testimony to Congress.

Too bad the Post didn't mention his cold fusion background; that really puts this scheme into perspective.

It's just the eco-version of the same old same old. (There's one born every minute, and two to take his money ... )

A guest essay from Greenpeace scientists

A while back, after some criticisms of his company on this site, I ran an essay by Russ George, CEO of Planktos, defending his work. What follows is a response to that essay from the UK-based Greenpeace Science Unit. —– Russ George, CEO of self-professed ‘ecorestoration’ company Planktos, seems increasingly convinced that opposition to his […]

In an op-ed, Russ George claims his company has been unfairly maligned

A company called Planktos has taken some lumps on our site, so when their president, Russ George, sent this response along, I agreed to run it. (It ran originally in the Ottawa Citizen.) Your responses are welcome, but please, keep them civil. —– As someone who has committed most of my waking life to caring […]

Illegal, but they’ll do it anyway

According to the Vancouver Sun, Planktos is planning to continue its scheme to dump iron into the oceans off the Galapagos, even though the EPA has ruled it illegal. The EPA ruled in May that it needs a permit. Planktos CEO Russ George has a simple solution: hire a foreign vessel and fly a flag of convenience.

Ken Caldeira and Chris Field of the Carnegie Institute say that it is impossible to verify whether carbon is sequestrated, and that if it is, the added carbon will contribute to ocean acidification. Via ECT it turns out that as of June 19 Planktos still claims on its website to be using nano-particles of iron rather than regular iron dust. (It is pretty far down, so I suggest you use your browser's page search function.) Planktos has said publicly that they are not using nano-particles. Maybe they are just leaving the term on their website because it sounds cool -- which would not speak well for their integrity. Or maybe after taking major-league public hits they still have not gotten around to correcting their website -- which would not speak well for their competence. Or maybe they actually are planning to dump nano-particles of iron into the ocean, which would not speak well for their sanity.

At any rate, Jim Thomas of ETC has suggested to me that when they select their flag of convenience, they consider flying the skull and crossbones.

Umbra on albedo

Hi Umbra, Can we make small changes to increase the albedo in the Northern Hemisphere? Choose white or light-colored autos (white is safer, anyway), white or light-colored roofs. Could we float white “islands” (recycled Styrofoam) in our lakes and oceans in locations that would not disrupt transportation? Sometimes white plastic bags get caught in the […]

Planktos may be a bad idea, but innovation is good

The green blogosphere generally reacted with chuckles or consternation to Planktos' announced plans to dump tons of iron into the ocean to, you know, see what happens. Gar Lipow took the article as another excuse to bash carbon offsets.

To follow the logic, you first have to know why anyone would want to dump several tons of iron into the sea. Planktos hopes to demonstrate that seeding the oceans with certain nutrients is a credible way to stimulate plankton blooms. It further hopes to demonstrate that these blooms are a credible way to sequester atmospheric carbon. Carbon markets provide the incentive for this quixotic undertaking. If the experiment is successful -- a big if -- Planktos could one day tap into the many billions of dollars available for carbon reduction projects.

And why wouldn’t they?

RealClimate, a blog run by leading climate scientists, thinks Planktos's scheme to dump iron particles in the ocean to make plankton bloom and sequester carbon is "thin soup."

I have some extended quotes from David Archer on the subject below the fold. But if you are interested, read the whole thing.

In spite of public relations claims by Planktos representatives in comments, it appears that most of the scientific community does not think highly of the Planktos claims.