6 Responses to “A Brief History of Geoengineering”

1
1. Mark Bahner Says:
   February 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am

   I think the poor quality of the discussion of geo-engineering reflects the fact that even people who say they are deeply concerned really aren’t.

   There are a whole host of “geo-engineering” or large-scale engineering items that could mitigate the dire consequences that are stated to be likely to occur (most late in this century, or even in following centuries).

   As I pointed out previously, here are a few that deal with slowing or stopping rising sea levels:

   1) Inject air, or put in essentially tens of thousands of square miles of air mattresses, under the ice sheets that extend out from the land in Antarctica and Greenland. This would significantly reduce the melting rate, because air is an excellent heat insulator, whereas water is an excellent heat conductor.

   2) Essentially stuff airbags into the moulins in Greenland and Antarctica. (Moulins are holes in the ice that carry meltwater from the surface of a glacier down to the base of the glacier, thus lubricating the base of the glacier, and speeding its travel.) Instead divert the meltwater in channels across the surface of the glaciers.

   3) Trap meltwater running over the surface of glaciers in reservoirs, so that the water will not go into the sea. Then pump the water up upwards in the winter, making snow/ice.

   4) Cover large portions of glaciers with tarps in the summer, which can be removed during the winter.

   And as I’ve pointed out many times, it makes much more sense to develop a hurricane storm surge protection system that can be deployed anywhere in the world on a few days’ notice, rather than reducing CO2 emissions, and pretending that will have any significant effect on hurricane storm surge damage.

2
2. TokyoTom Says:
   February 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm

   Mark, I’m curious if you can build a libertarian case FOR geoengineering. Why should we want our governments to try to play with the Earth’s thermostat?

3
3. TokyoTom Says:
   February 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 pm

   David, thanks for the interesting article. I note that it misses the earlier history of rainmaking (I’m thinking particularly of Charles Hatfield and San Diego: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/70winter/hatfield.htm) and the role of cloud-seeding in the 1972 Rapid City, SD flood that killed 200: http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Rmfli9l7ezUC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=rainmaking+rapid+city+flood+cloud+seeding&source=web&ots=2pQeDgnm5Q&sig=0pkJ0qnv39ztpXxylWr1EfGpSW8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA139,M1.

   Otherwise, I think it asks the right big questions:

   “Assume, for just a moment, that climate control were technically possible. Who would be given the authority to manage it? Who would have the wisdom to dispense drought, severe winters, or the effects of storms to some so that the rest of the planet could prosper? At what cost, economically, aesthetically, and in our moral relationship to nature, would we manipulate the ­climate?”

4
4. Mark Bahner Says:
   February 4th, 2009 at 10:16 am

   Hi Tom,

   You write, “I’m curious if you can build a libertarian case FOR geoengineering. Why should we want our governments to try to play with the Earth’s thermostat?”

   Well, that’s going to take awhile to answer. I guess the first two reactions are:

   1) I can pretty easily make a libertarian case for the government ***not getting in the way*** of certain types of geo-engineering. For example, let’s take ocean iron fertilization. It affords the possibility of removing a significant amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. In fact, it’s possible that ocean iron fertilization, accompanied by measures to get the algae down into the deep ocean, could stop CO2 increases completely, or even reverse them. Ocean iron fertilization also affords the possibility of significantly increasing the amount of life in the oceans. (If iron-deficient areas of the ocean can be thought of as “deserts,” then the iron is essentially fertilizer/”water” that makes the desert bloom.)

   Since the open oceans are outside of the jurisdiction of all governments, I don’t see much of a libertarian case for governments trying to prevent iron fertilization of oceans.

   2) I can make a (weak ) libertarian case for governments getting involved in something like developing a national storm surge protection system. (Most people probably would not call that “geo-engineering.” But it’s large-scale engineering.)

   How can I possibly do that? Well, let’s say that a bunch of Caribbean nations were attacking the United States. There would be a very solid libertarian case for repelling the invasion, right? Now, substitute storm surge from the Caribbean for Caribbean governments.

   Some (probably most) libertarians would argue that this is “God” attacking, and there is no legitimate libertarian case for protecting against acts of “God.” They would argue that people should simply not live near the ocean, or pay the appropriate insurance rates. I argue that, if the government legitimately protects against invasion by other governments, why can’t it also legitimately protect against invasions by “God”?

   Now, a fine point would be whether it is the federal government or state governments (of the states along the Gulf and East coasts that are vulnerable to hurricane storm surge) that should protect against storm surge invasions by “God.” I’d agree that it would be better if the states that were vulnerable did the funding, rather than the federal government. That way, people in Nevada aren’t paying to protect people in Florida from storm surge. But look at Hurricane Katrina. The federal government paid big-time to help the people in New Orleans recover from the flooding. (And the federal government paid even more to strengthen flood defenses around New Orleans.) If the federal government had paid to develop and deploy a system that had stopped (or significantly reduced) the flooding of New Orleans, the people in Nevada would have saved a bunch of money. Of course, a legitimate libertarian argument would be that the federal government never should have paid for the recovery in the first place.

   Another point would be that the people vulnerable to storm surge should pay enough insurance that the insurance companies would get together to develop their own storm surge protection system. I’d say, “In theory, that could work.” I’d also note, as Homer Simpson famously said, “In theory, communism works. In theory.” I don’t have any hope that private entities will develop a national storm surge protection system, absent government funding.

   Mark

   P.S. Regarding items of geo-engineering such as blasting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere at the poles, or putting parasols in space, or even scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere with tower scrubbers…I definitely don’t think a case can be made for the government spending money on those things that’s “libertarian.”

5
5. TokyoTom Says:
   February 5th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

   Well, Mark, I certainly appreciate your effort, but from a libertarian view it’s not at all a case FOR government itself to do any climate change mitigation geo-engineering.

   You’ve basically said that (1) governments should stay out of the way of voluntary efforts and (2) maybe they should fund storm sturge protection. I rather agree with you on case (1), but note that since benefits are shared with the rest of the world there are little or no incentives for private efforts absent carbon pricing and recognition of offsets. As for (2), storm surge protection resembles government provision of dams, levees and the like, which libertarians generally argue are better left to private initiatives by communities and insurers to provide.

6
6. Mark Bahner Says:
   February 8th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

   Tom,

   “Well, Mark, I certainly appreciate your effort, but from a libertarian view it’s not at all a case FOR government itself to do any climate change mitigation geo-engineering.”

   Well, what did you expect? When did I ever write anything that made you think I (or anyone else) would make a “libertarian” case for government itself to do climate change mitigation geo-engineering?

   “As for (2), storm surge protection resembles government provision of dams, levees and the like, which libertarians generally argue are better left to private initiatives by communities and insurers to provide.

   How many multi-billion dollar public protection measures have ever been built by “private initiatives by communities and insurers”? None, right?

   So if no multi-billion dollar public protection measures have ever been built by private entities, aren’t the “libertarians” really saying they don’t support hurricane storm surge protection, regardless of the benefits?

   In an analogous situation, would “libertarians” also say that a private entity should build a meteor deflection system?