Why isn't this rational solution to global warming being discussed more in the media?
December 20, 2009 2:21 PM Subscribe
Why isn't this particular solution to global warming being discussed in the media? How could myself or others raise awareness of it?
I was watching Fareed Zakaria GPS today, and he was interviewing a very intelligent man named Nathan Myhrvold. Nathan has come up with the idea of pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to diffuse light particles and lower the temperature of the Earth. This process already occurs naturally when a volcano erupts.
Why am I not hearing about this until now? Why wasn't this discussed (as far as I know) at the Copenhagen Climate Summit? This is a much better solution (in my opinion) than cap and trade or a carbon tax. It is a much cheaper solution that wouldn't put a huge tax burden on citizens of developed and developing countries.
You can read more about it at the following links:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html?singlepage=true&cat=15
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/20/briefing_book_12-20.09.pdf
I was watching Fareed Zakaria GPS today, and he was interviewing a very intelligent man named Nathan Myhrvold. Nathan has come up with the idea of pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to diffuse light particles and lower the temperature of the Earth. This process already occurs naturally when a volcano erupts.
Why am I not hearing about this until now? Why wasn't this discussed (as far as I know) at the Copenhagen Climate Summit? This is a much better solution (in my opinion) than cap and trade or a carbon tax. It is a much cheaper solution that wouldn't put a huge tax burden on citizens of developed and developing countries.
You can read more about it at the following links:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html?singlepage=true&cat=15
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/20/briefing_book_12-20.09.pdf
This post was deleted for the following reason: This is kind of a mess and reads more like evangelism than an askme question. -- cortex
This has been discussed by the authors of Freakonomics, as mentioned on NPR (transcript).
posted by Frank Grimes at 2:29 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by Frank Grimes at 2:29 PM on December 20, 2009
Why am I not hearing about this until now?
Because you've apparently been living under a rock. It's discussed in the book Super Freakonomics, which has been promoted to death on every talk show there is.
Why wasn't this discussed (as far as I know) at the Copenhagen Climate Summit?
Because it borders on supervillainy. Pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere would cause more problems than it solves, namely acid rain.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:29 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Because you've apparently been living under a rock. It's discussed in the book Super Freakonomics, which has been promoted to death on every talk show there is.
Why wasn't this discussed (as far as I know) at the Copenhagen Climate Summit?
Because it borders on supervillainy. Pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere would cause more problems than it solves, namely acid rain.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:29 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
I remember reading about it in Wired - wasn't sure when but looks like it was June '08.
posted by mannequito at 2:31 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by mannequito at 2:31 PM on December 20, 2009
You could start with a Google search or two , which shows this is a somewhat older idea than you think it is, did not originate with Myhrvold, and has been addressed by several scientists with opposing views.
Something you just learned about today may not necessarily be the truly awesome idea you think it is. Do some more legwork first.
posted by maudlin at 2:32 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Something you just learned about today may not necessarily be the truly awesome idea you think it is. Do some more legwork first.
posted by maudlin at 2:32 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
There was also an analysis of this, via Freakonomics, in the New Yorker (which people for some bizarre reason don't seem to take seriously) by Elizabeth Kolbert. She ripped it apart, more or less, at least as a general solution.
posted by sully75 at 2:33 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by sully75 at 2:33 PM on December 20, 2009
I've seen it on Discovery, PBS and CBC, listened to it on the radio, read about it wherever.
I you look up the concept in an encyclopedia, it's listed right next to the "Law of Unforeseen Consequences, ref: internal combustion engine".
posted by KokuRyu at 2:34 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
I you look up the concept in an encyclopedia, it's listed right next to the "Law of Unforeseen Consequences, ref: internal combustion engine".
posted by KokuRyu at 2:34 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Aside from the fact that this is the most blatantly spammy shit dressed up as a question, the reason why no one is discussing this at Copenhagen is because:
a) It will not stop the acidification of the ocean and other carbonic badness
b) It will reduce the intensity of sunlight and with it the productivity of crops
c) It causes acid rain
d) There is strong evidence it cause respiratory illness
e) No one knows how it will react in the upper atmosphere
f) It can synthesise to hydrogen sulfide, and god help us all.
posted by smoke at 2:35 PM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
a) It will not stop the acidification of the ocean and other carbonic badness
b) It will reduce the intensity of sunlight and with it the productivity of crops
c) It causes acid rain
d) There is strong evidence it cause respiratory illness
e) No one knows how it will react in the upper atmosphere
f) It can synthesise to hydrogen sulfide, and god help us all.
posted by smoke at 2:35 PM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
Fareed Zakaria is a very smart journalist who knows a lot about politics and history, and pretty much jack and shit about science.
As Sys Rq says, this is shitty science which wouldn't work for a second, and was thoroughly debunked about two months ago everywhere, from the blogosphere to the New York Times to the blogosphere to the Guardian to The Union of Concerned Scientists.
And, yeah, I don't see how you missed it, but you did. Myrhvold proposed a crappy theory, the Freakonomics dudes promoted it, people who actually knew what they were talking about shot it full of holes, and the world moved on to discuss actual science.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:41 PM on December 20, 2009
As Sys Rq says, this is shitty science which wouldn't work for a second, and was thoroughly debunked about two months ago everywhere, from the blogosphere to the New York Times to the blogosphere to the Guardian to The Union of Concerned Scientists.
And, yeah, I don't see how you missed it, but you did. Myrhvold proposed a crappy theory, the Freakonomics dudes promoted it, people who actually knew what they were talking about shot it full of holes, and the world moved on to discuss actual science.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:41 PM on December 20, 2009
Other solutions not being discussed at the Copenhagen summit include invention of perpetual motion machines and adjustments to the phlogiston.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:42 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:42 PM on December 20, 2009
You might be interested in this David Keith Ted Conference speech where he talks about and how it probably isn't a great idea, but is possible.
Personally, I'd take acid rain and reduced crops over drowning, but thinking of it as an awesome solution is not a good idea.
posted by sully75 at 2:42 PM on December 20, 2009
Personally, I'd take acid rain and reduced crops over drowning, but thinking of it as an awesome solution is not a good idea.
posted by sully75 at 2:42 PM on December 20, 2009
Nathan Myhrvold is very smart in a very narrow set of areas, and climate science isn't one of them. Some part of the reason the answer isn't getting amplified is because he may very well not know what the fuck he's talking about.
posted by anildash at 2:43 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by anildash at 2:43 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
The reason that AGW fans don't like this solution is because it doesn't permit them to deindustrialize the west or to impose world socialist governance with the power to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:44 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:44 PM on December 20, 2009
As a computer programmer, I can tell you the last thing the world needs is more computer programmers talking with authority about things they know very little about.
posted by miyabo at 2:50 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by miyabo at 2:50 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
The main reason it doesn't get much traction is that massive geoengineering projects are totally unstudied and untested. The consequences are impossible to predict, and could be drastically worse than the problem they're attempting to solve.
If you want to look at geoengineering, I'd suggest you have a look at the various carbon sequestering schemes that are under study. There's far less chance that a kelp bed will ruin our atmosphere than pumping sulfer compounds out there.
The reason that AGW fans don't like this solution is because it doesn't permit them to deindustrialize the west or to impose world socialist governance with the power to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations.
What?
(Not to mention, the west has been doing very well at deindustrializing itself through offshoring.)
posted by Netzapper at 2:54 PM on December 20, 2009
If you want to look at geoengineering, I'd suggest you have a look at the various carbon sequestering schemes that are under study. There's far less chance that a kelp bed will ruin our atmosphere than pumping sulfer compounds out there.
The reason that AGW fans don't like this solution is because it doesn't permit them to deindustrialize the west or to impose world socialist governance with the power to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations.
What?
(Not to mention, the west has been doing very well at deindustrializing itself through offshoring.)
posted by Netzapper at 2:54 PM on December 20, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
It sounds good as a stopgap measure and could prevent us from wiping ourselves off the map but it's stopgap at best and isn't really addressing the problem.
posted by sully75 at 2:29 PM on December 20, 2009