« Climate Change »

Roger, you're clearly right that both Romm and Climate have unfortuinately focussed on Dyson rather than picking up on the policy issues raised by Nordhaus - who actually advocates a "carbon tax of $34 per metric ton of carbon in 2010 (all calculations are in 2005 international
U.S. dollars). The optimal tax rises in future years, reaching $42 per ton in 2015, $90 per ton in 2050, and $202 per ton in 2100." http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

The negative attacks by Real Climate and Romm on Dyson and Lindzen might have some merit, but they are entirely short-sighted - and totally miss the more important point of Nordhaus' strong conclusion, which Dyson failed to mention.

But then again, your own focus on criticizng Real Climate and Romm also ignores the opportunities raised by Nordhaus and Dyson to discuss policy.

So let's do that now (discuss the policy implications)..

I was intrigued by the idea of "genetically engineered carbon eating trees." What may be missed in the discussion about them is that most trees in forests take a fairly long time to grow to the point that they look "forest like" to people and wildlife. And the problem with forest tree breeding is not the time it takes to develop a new variety (especially with genetic engineering), but the time it takes to test it in nature (50-100 years). So if you plant thousands of acres that are insufficently adapted (to the unknown future climate) and they all die, there goes your carbon eaters as well as a substantial investment (4% over 50 years..).

That's not to say that shorter rotation trees (like poplars or eucalyptus) wouldn't work- it's just that people don't think of those as forests in the same way and would be unlikely to be happy campers (so to speak) to see one quarter of the forests converted to those (even if the short rotation trees would grow in those areas, which they wouldn't).

The good news is there are plenty of annual and other perennial plants that could more easily be genetically engineered, tested, changed if the climate changes, managed in a sustainable manner, and that would provide income to landowners.

Let's go there.

I wonder what percentage of our current research funds are going to work on developing varieties and sustainable practices that meet the above criteria?

docpine-

There has been some discussion of this subject by Craig Venter (human genome sequencer), e.g.,

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYXm1UNEI-ViI-p5S6TAaogyDv8Q

I am unaware of any public research funds in the US focused on such technologies, but I'd love to hear of any . . .

James Hansen and Wallace Broecker have also proposed capturing carbon dioxide via various means (including plants).

Thanks for the link to the Venter article; it sounds like more of a lab or processing plant technology. The analysis of environmental impacts for such a technology including the efficacy of the "suicide gene" would be a compelling read, I'm sure.
I suppose we should be grateful that his team is only "using synthetic chromosomes to modify organisms that already exist, not making new life."

Genetically engineered poplars are pretty low tech by comparison.

Hm, I was thinking of a different pattern that I see emerging in this discussion again -- the one where people wave their hands and direct scientists to go do work for them, claiming they know better than the scientists actually working on the material what should be done with it.

Like "genetically engineered carbon-eating trees"

A biologist might make similar suggestions. Like

--- "what we need is the string theorists to simply pull in half the carbon dioxide strings, making half of those disappear from the atmosphere -- problem solved."

or

-- "what we need is the radiation physicists to provide a way to -- controllably -- orient most of the molecules of any one or more of the greenhouse gases at the top of the atmosphere. Arrange them so that the emitted infrared photons go uphill or at worst sideways, and none of them go downhill, increasing the efficiency with which Earth's atmosphere gets rid of excess heat. Problem solved."

or

-- "what we need is the ionospheric radio physicists using something like the HAARP system to create a heat pump, beaming small amounts of microwave energy to nudge all the greenhouse gases up to energy levels where they will emit infrared photons carrying away more energy than input. Power the radio transmitters with windmills or bicyclists. Problem solved."

And of course

-- "Details of calculation should be performed by practicing scientists in the field, not by me, since this is clearly important enough to preempt whatever they're wasting time with on their day jobs now."

Oh, don't forget the marine mammal scientists' proposal:

-- " Restore large biomass consuming animals in the ocean, all the way up the trophic level from algae and plankton to codfish and sharks to the big whales, because large whales, both the filter-feeders and the carnivores, were the most effective carbon sequestration path available. All (except the 'Right Whale') sink when they die. The bottom of the abyssal ocean used to be littered with the slowly decomposing carcasses of the great whales, before whaling ships started taking them out of the ocean and the populations crashed. No other single pathway was so effective at collecting and removing large masses of carbon from the active biosphere to the abyss, before whaling began. Problem solved."

Would it not work better if everyone was focused on solving the problems rather than arguing with others that have thought up ideas of how to solve the problems that don't match their conclusion on what the problem is and or how to go about it?

To add to Hank's list I did read about a serious proposal to ionize the CO2 molecules so they could be sucked out by the magnetosphere at the North pole. Probably cause an ice age if it worked though.

I find that where I live at least, if we leave nature alone she does actually grow trees quite well all by herself. Probably stopping the current forest destruction is the real best first step.

When I was planning my carbon-free home, with underground pipes for geothermal energy and solar roof panels to capture the sun I soon realized I was really designing an inferior type of tree. If we could just manage to copy what a leaf does naturally...

Relying on taxes may not be as effective as believed either. In the US, despite driving decreasing over 4% the past year, fuel production has declined less than 1%.

Even with more efficient cars being produced, efficiency continues to decline.

http://cumulativemodel.blogspot.com/2008/05/fuel-efficiency-continues-to-decline.html

"...people wave their hands and direct scientists to go do work for them, claiming they know better than the scientists actually working on the material what should be done with it."

That is one of the more bizarre sets of mischaracterizations I've read lately. Nowhere in the comments preceding it did I see anything remotely resembling them. What I read were thoughts and suggestions concerning policy - supposedly the point of this thread.

So to get back to policy, it would seem wise to first establish whether reducing carbon emissions is a good idea or not before discussing the hows. People seem to forget that we're in a tiny de-glaciated interval of a 3-million-years-and-counting ice age, and if past cycles are any indication, it's about to end.

"...people wave their hands and direct scientists to go do work for them, claiming they know better than the scientists actually working on the material what should be done with it."

That is one of the more bizarre sets of mischaracterizations I've read lately. Nowhere in the comments preceding it did I see anything remotely resembling them. What I read were thoughts and suggestions concerning policy - supposedly the point of this thread.

So to get back to policy, it would seem wise to first establish whether reducing carbon emissions is a good idea or not before discussing the hows. People seem to forget that we're in a tiny de-glaciated interval of a 3-million-years-and-counting ice age, and if past cycles are any indication, it's about to end.

Hank -

I doesn't look like you made it into that Therm 101 class yet. When will that be?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: