The Thwaites Glacier, also known as the “Doomsday Glacier,” is melting at a much faster rate than previous research has shown, according to a new study.
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.
The nation’s national science academy recently claimed that the US should establish a multi-million-dollar research program specifically for looking into solar geoengineering. The group recently released a report that recommends the country put between $100-200 million into a five year program that would work to understand the “feasibility of interventions to dim the sun, the risk of harmful unintended consequences, and how such technology could be governed in an ethical way.”
The National Academies of Science (NAS) said that cutting fossil fuels emissions should be the nation’s number one priority when it comes to tackling climate change. However, the lack of action from our world leaders within the past decade has created an even more damaged environment to improve.
The report claims that there are three types of solar geoengineering that would help heat escape the Earth’s atmosphere and thus cool the planet overall: “injecting tiny reflective particles into the stratosphere to block sunlight; using the particles to make low-lying clouds over the oceans more reflective; and thinning high-altitude cirrus clouds. Major volcanic eruptions are already known to cool the climate by pumping particles high into the atmosphere.
Geoengineers are already arguing that the impact of climate change is already so large that every option must be explored if the Earth wants any chance at surviving the next century. Professor Marcia McNutt is the president of the Academy who recently spoke to the media about the importance of this overdue research.
“Given the urgency of the climate crisis, solar geoengineering needs to be studied further. But just as with advances in fields such as artificial intelligence or gene editing, science needs to engage the public to ask not just can we, but should we? Questions of governance – who will decide to deploy this intervention and for how long – were as important as the scientific questions.”
Professor Chris Field of Stanford University was the chair of the committee that wrote the report, who claimed that “the US solar geoengineering program should be all about helping society make more informed decisions regarding the planet.”
“Based on all of the evidence from social science, natural science, and technology, this research program could either indicate that solar geoengineering should not be considered further, or conclude that it warrants additional effort.”
The report claimed that “a reasonable initial investment for this solar geoengineering research program is within a range of $100-200 million total over five years. The program would be a small fraction of the US budget for climate change research and should not shift the focus from other projects.”
“The program should be designed to move forward in a socially responsible manner with researchers following a code of conduct, research catalogued in a public registry, and public engagement undertaken. Outdoor experiments should be subject to appropriate governance including impact assessments,” according to the report.
The academy claims that the program should also include scientific research regarding the possible climate outcomes that geoengineering could have on society and its many ecosystems. “Social dimensions cited for research included domestic and international conflict and cooperation, and justice, ethics, and equity.”
Professor Gernot Wagner of New York University said: “The report’s focus on research and research governance is important for one simple reason: the current discussion is – and should be – all about research into solar geoengineering, certainly not about deploying the technology, where, if anything, a firm moratorium would be appropriate.”
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.
The topic of climate change has been a frequent subject of discussion in the news media for the past several years, but lately the subject seems to be discussed with more frequency and urgency. And with good reason — the U.N. has concluded that limiting the overall amount of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is necessary to prevent the worst effects of climate change on civilization, and scientists warn that doing so will require massive, widespread changes to the way we harness and use energy. In response to this urgency, several democratic candidates participated in a climate-themed town hall hosted by CNN, during which they laid out their various plans for handling the crisis, with most focusing on placing a tax on carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy. But notably absent from most of the public conversation surrounding climate change is the subject of geoengineering — in other words, using technology to deliberately interfere in the earth’s climate system in order to curtail the worst effects of climate change.
The reasons for the absence of this approach in the public dialogue are easy to imagine. For one, the implications of the term “geoengineering” bring to mind the science-fiction movies, TV shows, and novels of the mid-twentieth centuries, making the concept seem little more than a far-fetched fantasy. And the approach of using technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere before eliminating carbon emissions seems like a counter-intuitive mismanagement of resources. But given the scale of the problem facing our planet, and the dire consequences of inaction, many scientists argue that all approaches, including geoengineering, need to be given serious consideration in our civilization’s quest to protect ourselves from disaster.
Even the most ardent supporters of geoengineering efforts admit that the process won’t be easy. For one, many of the technologies necessary to capture carbon, or otherwise mitigate the effects of climate change, haven’t been invented yet. Also, even the most modest estimates for the costs of developing and deploying these technologies are astronomical, and there doesn’t exist the same market incentive to fund geoengineering efforts as there does for oil and gas companies to remain the dominant providers of global energy. But scientists rightly point out that the rapidly accelerating pace of scientific progress means that technologies unimaginable just a few decades ago are today widespread, and whatever it will cost to ensure an inhabitable planet for generations to come pales in comparison to allowing the warming climate to destroy the environment.
A number of different geoengineering projects have been proposed, ranging from the mundane to the exotic. One proposal, which has already been implemented in some areas, is to continue to burn fossil fuels for energy but to capture, utilize, and store carbon emissions instead of allowing them to pollute the atmosphere. This approach has the benefit of being applicable to already-existing means of power production, as fossil fuels currently account for over 90% of the world’s energy sources, as well as relying on technologies that already exist. However, capturing carbon emissions introduces inefficiencies into the energy production pipeline, and requires the installation and maintenance of specialized equipment at power plants, both of which impose costs that energy producers may be reluctant to pay. While the International Energy Agency considers carbon capture “a critical tool in the climate energy toolbox,” it is clear that other solutions are also necessary for a successful global geoengineering effort.
Another idea is to spray particles into the atmosphere that would reflect sunlight, thus reducing the greenhouse effect. This approach carries with it a number of concerns. For one, given the extreme complexity of the global climate system, it’s difficult to predict what unintended side effects could arise, particularly when it comes to changes in weather events for individual locations. Spraying reflective particles into the air could result in a lessening of overall global temperatures, but the unexpected changes to weather patterns in various countries that could arise may lead to disaster in other ways. Other proposed methods of reducing the greenhouse gas effect include increasing the reflectivity of surfaces on the earth or of the ocean, or even deploying mirrors or shades in space to prevent sunlight from reaching the earth’s atmosphere.
A third approach, carbon dioxide removal, aims to address climate change by scrubbing greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Also called negative emissions, this approach relies upon deploying new technologies which currently exist only in theory. Another way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is, quite simply, planting trees. While this approach seems the most practical, difficulties in executing afforestation or reforestation efforts include securing the rights to large swaths of land for the purpose of creating forests, and the cost of planting millions of trees across a wide area. As one of the effects of carbon dioxide emissions is the acidification of the oceans, another idea in geoengineering is to fertilize the ocean with iron or other chemicals to revitalize marine life, including bacteria and algae.
Climate change is an extremely complex and multifaceted issue, with elements that affect nearly all aspects of civilized life. As such, the approach to dealing with climate change is similarly complex, and reducing carbon emissions by switching to renewable energy should only be part of the solution. While plenty of work still needs to be done in developing and refining geoengineering projects, global citizens should remain open-minded in our responses to a warming planet to ensure that the crisis is addressed effectively.
Tyler Olhorst is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. You can reach him at inquiries@thenationaldigest.com.
Although the Republican Party continues to hold the unique view that climate change is a hoax, or that it’s not a big problem, or that it’s unrelated to human activity, Democratic candidates are incorporating their plans for dealing with the “climate crisis” into their campaign platforms. After the DNC declined the suggestion to host a climate-themed debate, CNN stepped in, hosting a town hall on September 4th during which ten Democratic candidates were given the opportunity to articulate in detail their plans to cut back emissions, expand renewable energy, and execute other initiatives to battle the crisis. Though each candidate tried to differentiate themselves with a unique spin on their climate plan, all ten candidates offered an approach that wildly differed from the Republican Party establishment, which is currently in the process of rolling back regulations designed to limit carbon emissions and protect the environment from further destruction.
Although the town hall format of CNN’s event wasn’t quite the head-to-head debate activists had asked the DNC for, in some ways the event proved to be more useful for voters, as the event lasted a whopping 7 hours and gave voters the opportunity to ask tough questions on a subject that tends to get ignored in the traditional debate format.
On certain subjects, the candidates were in strong agreement. They agreed that climate change was a threat to the existence of not only the United States, but of human civilization, that the US should rejoin the Paris climate accord, that reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 was necessary, and that radical and unprecedented policies would have to be implemented in order to get us there. But they disagreed about which policies, exactly, would be the best for the country.
One of the more popular policy proposals among the candidates was a carbon tax, which is notable because politicians have been arguing for decades that placing a fee on greenhouse gas emissions would drive up the price of fuel and stifle the economy, hurting American consumers. A carbon tax, however, is widely considered one of the most effective potential policies for cutting back on pollution. Candidates differed on the specifics; while Sanders’ $16.3 trillion plan does not call for a carbon tax, Biden and Warren incorporate a carbon tax into their proposals, and Yang calls for a tax at $40 per ton of carbon, which would help to fund his Universal Basic Income proposal and initiatives to increase the efficiency of fossil fuels and increase the availability of renewable resources.
Although Governor Jay Inslee did not attend the town hall, as he recently dropped out of the presidential race, his presence was felt throughout the event. The governor ran on a climate-focused platform, arguing that it was by far the most important issue currently facing the country, and had the earliest and most detailed plan for fighting climate change. Elizabeth Warren invoked Inslee’s name specifically, explaining that she had incorporated several elements of his plan into her own. Joe Biden’s staff also planned a meeting with Inslee’s staff to discuss climate policy, and Biden pledged not to accept money from donors from the fossil fuel industry. Biden also emphasized his experience in dealing with international affairs, citing his personal relationships with several other world leaders and noting that climate change is a problem that can only be addressed via cooperation between nations.
Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg also pledged to implement a carbon tax, with Harris also proposing a ban on fracking. Some candidates strictly opposed the use of natural gas, while others viewed it as a necessary stepping stone between the use of oil and of renewable sources of energy. Perhaps the most divisive topic of the night was nuclear energy; some candidates, including Sanders, argue against the use of nuclear power, citing the problems of storing radioactive wastes and the threat of nuclear accidents, while others, including Yang, argue that nuclear energy is an essential component of transitioning to a carbon-free future, and that newer technology allows nuclear power plants to be safer and produce less waste.
In particular, Yang’s plan is notable because it goes further than reducing carbon emissions to discuss how to prepare for the predicted negative effects of climate change. Yang proposes investing in initiatives to move people to higher ground, away from the coasts, as coastal cities are the most likely to be devastated by rising sea levels and a growing intensity of extreme weather events. He also proposes investments in geoengineering, including capturing carbon, planting trees to rebuild forests, injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, and installing mirrors in space to reflect sunlight. The fact that these proposals deal with the bleak possibility of surrendering to the reality of climate change, combined with the impression they given of sounding more like science-fiction than reality, means that other candidates are hesitant to explore this territory of climate policy.
Many of the candidates instead chose to focus on the economic opportunities created by investing in clean energy solutions. The candidates claim that expanding the country’s usage of solar and wind would create millions of jobs. Economists, however, warn that the lofty goals candidates set for job creation are just estimates, and that it’s difficult to predict exactly how exactly the job market would react to such a drastic shift in priorities. One thing is for certain, however: whether or not the United States takes bold action to address the climate crisis, drastic change is coming, whether that be in the form of a major reimagining of our energy systems or the destruction of the environment resulting from global inaction.
Tyler Olhorst is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. You can reach him at inquiries@thenationaldigest.com.