I know I should watch this one. But also don’t want to. Will eventually, maybe. Hate humans so powerfully today, and our ideas and “solutions” and above all our “leaders” and wannabe “saviors” that we so easily give all power to.
Soul weary of it. But you’re a mensch for doing this interview and I’m sure your guest is a good dude.
I've been concerned about this for a long time, and pretty adamantly opposed to geoengineering. This guy is a proponent--the fact that he comes across as so reasonable and fair-minded makes him an effective proponent; but I think you should consider the other side, perhaps by having someone from ETC Group on. On their website you can find a report called The Big Bad Fix, which I read a few years ago and thought very good. There are others that may be more recent.
I have several questions I'd ask Ted.
1) What about the charge that the sulfur spraying project would alter rainfall patterns? As you suggested, ANY change will benefit some and harm others, and with so many people living on the edge of survival, this could quite seriously lead to war. If the Indian monsoon hits India harder and Pakistan less, will India be accusing Pakistan of causing flooding if they supported the program, or will Pakistan accuse India of causing a drought that leads to thousands of deaths by starvation.?The intervention may not have caused the change, but if it's going on someone WILL blame it--and whoever is doing it.
2) These hundred airplanes flying 24/7 for years on end--what are they using for fuel? Fossil fuels? How does the cooling balance the emissions from the planes? And, isn't the dependence of airplanes on fossil fuels a good reason to fear termination shock--because the fuels aren't going to last forever, plus they depend on a complex supply chain that could easily be terminated, by shortages, war, etc..
3) Proponents of geoengineering invariably make the point that it isn't a substitute for mitigation, that mitigation must happen too. But OF COURSE implementation of a serious geoengineering project will reduce pressure for mitigation--even without geoengineering, mitigation is not happening now.
4) Speaking of which, why did Ted (and many others) say we're making good progress in reducing emissions when the readings at Mauna Loa are not only not falling but just went up by the largest increment ever?
5) Why did he say in the event of a termination, the sulfur in the stratosphere would take a decade to come down when he'd previously said it takes a year? And would even half a degree of abrupt rise from termination shock be harmless, when so many species are being driven to the brink?
6) The problem of trying to get rational governance is well considered by Ted, but that doesn't make it any less formidable. You seem to avoid mentions of politics, but, well look what happening in the U.S. right now, and much of the rest of the world--this is not getting better.
What happens when commercial air travel collapses? A considerable amount of artificial albedo is created and sustained from continuous high altitude contrails (not the conspiracy kind).
Just like the spike increase in global temperature when global shipping removed sulfur from fuel, it will unmask heating, probably in an a more dramatic change.
Ted speaks of decades of planning and cooperation and execution. Ah, the luxury of time! We do not understand the trouble we are in. We refuse to acknowledge the depth of interconnection.
Mostly, I feel that Ted is delusional in his estimations of the political realities/possibilities and obvious developing trajectories.
There are a diverse hoard of termination shocks already poised in the cue.
I posted this comment at The Great Simplification youtube channel under the Will We Artificially Cool the Planet video, but for some reason it did not appear there, so I am reposting it here:
Earth's climate system is not a unique function of the global mean surface temperature that geoengineering aims to decrease. What matters a lot for the climate is atmospheric circulation, which depends on many things, including vegetation cover on land. Most weather extremes like heatwaves are related to disruptions in atmospheric circulation.
Dynamically, adding aerosols is not the same as reducing CO2 or recovering the disappearing clouds. Therefore, even if we reduce the global mean temperature, we can end up with a much more violent climate than it is now. Especially in terms of terrestrial hydrology disrupted, if the forest decimation continues. (I discussed this at https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/ecosystem-collapse-and-extreme-weather )
This said, I am myself a member of a geoengineering group, and they are all great people deeply concerned about our planetary future. I am a silent listener of their discussions, to grow humility and understand that my own aspirations (that our urgent focus should be on protecting natural ecosystems) can feel equally distant to other people.
We already have aerosols from burning fossil fuels in the lower atmosphere where they cause a lot of health issues and drop out of the sky in about a week. They are currently cooling the Earth by half to one degree Celsius, so, if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, we would immediately shoot past +2C. With the clean up of shipping fuels, we are already seeing a spike in warming. We urgently need a plan to deal with the termination shock that is coming from the geoengineering that we have been doing for a century. Putting aerosols in the upper atmosphere would mean that we only need one hundredth of the quality (and one hundredth of the negative effects) that we *already have*.
Ted says that the research shows the cooling effect from SAI is fairly uniform around the world with a slight benefit to poorer countries near the equator. That seems fair, given that it is some of the poorest countries, that did least to cause our *current* disastrous atmospheric geoengineering, that are suffering most.
It’s no use putting our heads in the sand and pretending that reducing emissions will save us from run away warming. It most definitely will not! The risks of various interventions must be balanced against the certainty of catastrophe if we continue on our current path of focusing only on (slow) emissions reductions.
Another thought-provoking episode - number 200 already, wow! Ted has clearly researched the topic in great depth over the last 25 years and presents a lot of strong arguments. I also agree that, more likely than not, it will be attempted over the coming years/decades as we face increasingly extreme weather events. However, his whole premise about it being a net positive idea - a techno-optimist fix that can actually work - is based on the flawed assumptions that we will, firstly, radically reduce emissions (not just from burning FFs but also the increasing feedback emissions from former land and ocean sinks) and, secondly, we will simultaneously invent and scale a way to remove the 1 trillion+ tonnes of excess GHGs (trace gases) from the air. Once you face reality about these assumptions then the whole proposal falls apart and just shows we all suffer from blind spots, even if we have dedicated decades of time to a topic - perhaps more so after this amount of time.
Actually there are safe, natural ways to sequester emissions, by reforestation and proper farming. But they can only do so much--it's imperative that we sharply curtail emissions, and as you say there is no movement to do so. I've read that of the many trajectories the IPCC has for getting to something below 2 degrees by 2050 or 2100, 100% assume negative emissions technologies. Kinda like the Underwear Gnomes on South Park. When your plan assumes that magic will happen...
I know I should watch this one. But also don’t want to. Will eventually, maybe. Hate humans so powerfully today, and our ideas and “solutions” and above all our “leaders” and wannabe “saviors” that we so easily give all power to.
Soul weary of it. But you’re a mensch for doing this interview and I’m sure your guest is a good dude.
I've been concerned about this for a long time, and pretty adamantly opposed to geoengineering. This guy is a proponent--the fact that he comes across as so reasonable and fair-minded makes him an effective proponent; but I think you should consider the other side, perhaps by having someone from ETC Group on. On their website you can find a report called The Big Bad Fix, which I read a few years ago and thought very good. There are others that may be more recent.
I have several questions I'd ask Ted.
1) What about the charge that the sulfur spraying project would alter rainfall patterns? As you suggested, ANY change will benefit some and harm others, and with so many people living on the edge of survival, this could quite seriously lead to war. If the Indian monsoon hits India harder and Pakistan less, will India be accusing Pakistan of causing flooding if they supported the program, or will Pakistan accuse India of causing a drought that leads to thousands of deaths by starvation.?The intervention may not have caused the change, but if it's going on someone WILL blame it--and whoever is doing it.
2) These hundred airplanes flying 24/7 for years on end--what are they using for fuel? Fossil fuels? How does the cooling balance the emissions from the planes? And, isn't the dependence of airplanes on fossil fuels a good reason to fear termination shock--because the fuels aren't going to last forever, plus they depend on a complex supply chain that could easily be terminated, by shortages, war, etc..
3) Proponents of geoengineering invariably make the point that it isn't a substitute for mitigation, that mitigation must happen too. But OF COURSE implementation of a serious geoengineering project will reduce pressure for mitigation--even without geoengineering, mitigation is not happening now.
4) Speaking of which, why did Ted (and many others) say we're making good progress in reducing emissions when the readings at Mauna Loa are not only not falling but just went up by the largest increment ever?
5) Why did he say in the event of a termination, the sulfur in the stratosphere would take a decade to come down when he'd previously said it takes a year? And would even half a degree of abrupt rise from termination shock be harmless, when so many species are being driven to the brink?
6) The problem of trying to get rational governance is well considered by Ted, but that doesn't make it any less formidable. You seem to avoid mentions of politics, but, well look what happening in the U.S. right now, and much of the rest of the world--this is not getting better.
What happens when commercial air travel collapses? A considerable amount of artificial albedo is created and sustained from continuous high altitude contrails (not the conspiracy kind).
Just like the spike increase in global temperature when global shipping removed sulfur from fuel, it will unmask heating, probably in an a more dramatic change.
Ted speaks of decades of planning and cooperation and execution. Ah, the luxury of time! We do not understand the trouble we are in. We refuse to acknowledge the depth of interconnection.
Mostly, I feel that Ted is delusional in his estimations of the political realities/possibilities and obvious developing trajectories.
There are a diverse hoard of termination shocks already poised in the cue.
I posted this comment at The Great Simplification youtube channel under the Will We Artificially Cool the Planet video, but for some reason it did not appear there, so I am reposting it here:
Earth's climate system is not a unique function of the global mean surface temperature that geoengineering aims to decrease. What matters a lot for the climate is atmospheric circulation, which depends on many things, including vegetation cover on land. Most weather extremes like heatwaves are related to disruptions in atmospheric circulation.
Dynamically, adding aerosols is not the same as reducing CO2 or recovering the disappearing clouds. Therefore, even if we reduce the global mean temperature, we can end up with a much more violent climate than it is now. Especially in terms of terrestrial hydrology disrupted, if the forest decimation continues. (I discussed this at https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/ecosystem-collapse-and-extreme-weather )
This said, I am myself a member of a geoengineering group, and they are all great people deeply concerned about our planetary future. I am a silent listener of their discussions, to grow humility and understand that my own aspirations (that our urgent focus should be on protecting natural ecosystems) can feel equally distant to other people.
Really great episode. So clear and thoughtful.
We already have aerosols from burning fossil fuels in the lower atmosphere where they cause a lot of health issues and drop out of the sky in about a week. They are currently cooling the Earth by half to one degree Celsius, so, if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, we would immediately shoot past +2C. With the clean up of shipping fuels, we are already seeing a spike in warming. We urgently need a plan to deal with the termination shock that is coming from the geoengineering that we have been doing for a century. Putting aerosols in the upper atmosphere would mean that we only need one hundredth of the quality (and one hundredth of the negative effects) that we *already have*.
Ted says that the research shows the cooling effect from SAI is fairly uniform around the world with a slight benefit to poorer countries near the equator. That seems fair, given that it is some of the poorest countries, that did least to cause our *current* disastrous atmospheric geoengineering, that are suffering most.
It’s no use putting our heads in the sand and pretending that reducing emissions will save us from run away warming. It most definitely will not! The risks of various interventions must be balanced against the certainty of catastrophe if we continue on our current path of focusing only on (slow) emissions reductions.
Another thought-provoking episode - number 200 already, wow! Ted has clearly researched the topic in great depth over the last 25 years and presents a lot of strong arguments. I also agree that, more likely than not, it will be attempted over the coming years/decades as we face increasingly extreme weather events. However, his whole premise about it being a net positive idea - a techno-optimist fix that can actually work - is based on the flawed assumptions that we will, firstly, radically reduce emissions (not just from burning FFs but also the increasing feedback emissions from former land and ocean sinks) and, secondly, we will simultaneously invent and scale a way to remove the 1 trillion+ tonnes of excess GHGs (trace gases) from the air. Once you face reality about these assumptions then the whole proposal falls apart and just shows we all suffer from blind spots, even if we have dedicated decades of time to a topic - perhaps more so after this amount of time.
Actually there are safe, natural ways to sequester emissions, by reforestation and proper farming. But they can only do so much--it's imperative that we sharply curtail emissions, and as you say there is no movement to do so. I've read that of the many trajectories the IPCC has for getting to something below 2 degrees by 2050 or 2100, 100% assume negative emissions technologies. Kinda like the Underwear Gnomes on South Park. When your plan assumes that magic will happen...