Geoengineering Technique -  Solar Radiation Management

by Bonnie Hoag for The Bonnefire Coalition

Since October 2009 the media have begun to discuss the possibility of geoengineering techniques which might have to be used to mitigate the ill-effects of global warming/climate change.

While the term “geoengineering” is still being refined, the Council on Foreign Relations defines it as “Any of a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming.” (from the CFR Unilateral Geoengineering workshop May 5, 2008).

Here, at the outset, I submit that my first remedy to the sickened condition of Earth is simply for our species to wake up from our coma!  We are trained and educated away from common sense and personal responsibility. And we are starved for the kind of nourishment which simplicity and generosity might provide. For now, simplicity is gobbled up by excess. Our sense of entitlement shapes our solutions.  Without addressing the root causes of our condition how can we hope to discover real remedies? The Bonnefire Coalition imagines a world in which we share Earth’s bounty with all Beings.  It’s only common decency. It’s only common sense.

The Bonnefire Coalition was initiated to stop the pluming jet trails, what NASA calls Persistent Jet Contrails. PJCs are those trails - often appearing in grids, Xs and parallel lines - which are witnessed and recorded daily and globally. As PJCs expand they combine to veil the sky and dim the sun. NASA agrees with the Bonnefire Coalition that PJCs are contributing to global warming and reducing direct sunlight. While we have been busy trying to stop the effects of PJCs, another geoengineering acronym has sprouted in the laboratories of the global scientific community:  SRM, which is the focus of this article.

SRM - Solar Radiation Management is one of the most disturbingly inventive of the geoengineering techniques currently being discussed. By definition, “SRM and related strategies seek to directly intervene in the climate system, without directly affecting atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.” (from Ken Caldeira’s testimony - Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention, before the House Committee on Science and Technology, November 5, 2009).  By another definition “SRM aims to offset the warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by reducing the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth.” (from Lee Lane’s testimony - Researching Solar Radiation Management as a Climate Policy Option before the House Committee on Science and Technology, November 5, 2009).
On November 5, 2009 the U.S. government went public with its SRM geoengineering schemes, as the House of Representatives conducted Hearings before the House Committee on Science and Technology   (http://science.house.gov/Publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2668). The testimonies describe possible future geoengineering techniques to abate global warming. This excursion into a public forum gives us a most rare opportunity to ask our legislators to speak on our behalf, to say firmly to the geoengineers, “No! You may not!”

The congressional hearings discuss several methods for implementing Solar Radiation Management. The one of particular concern to us is administered by military jets, high in the stratosphere, laying down particles of Sulfur Dioxide (Council on Foreign Relations Unilateral Geoengineering May 5, 2008 workshop) which effectively haze the sky and dim the sun. Our research indicates that Sulfur Dioxide is not the only particulate being considered. “Other candidates include hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and soot.” (Crutzen, 2006) (from Lee Lane’s November 5, 2009 testimony). “A fairly broad range of materials might be used as stratospheric scatterers” (Caldeira and Wood 2008) (from Lee Lane’s November 5, 2009 testimony). “Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols…” (CFR Unilateral Geoengineering  May 5, 2008 workshop).

“Cloud Cover Modification,” is another Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technique which uses particulates to reflect sunlight back into space, away from the Earth.  For this method of modifying marinc stratocumulus clouds “the level of Sulfur Dioxide emissions required to counteract the effects of double CO2 concentrations was estimated at 31,000 tons per day, an amount equivalent at the time to the SO2 [Sulfur Dioxide] emissions from a coal-fired plant for an entire year.” (CFR Unilateral Geoengineering  May 5, 2008 workshop). How is this use of SO2 even being considered when we have been working to reduce the effects of SO2 emissions? Out of fairness to the Council on Foreign Relations, they do acknowledge that this method  “would have massive environmental impacts in the form of acid rain.”  If so, why are we even discussing its use?

In his November 5th testimony, while assessing risks of various geoengineering techniques, Professor Alan Robock, of Rutgers University, states that “with brightening of marine clouds there is…a possible large impact on the oceanic food chain due to less solar energy needed for plankton at the base of the food chain to grow.” Less solar energy [which is] needed for the plankton at the base of the food chain?   If common sense prevailed, this SRM technique would be dismissed without consideration.

Further, if  “brightened clouds” over the oceans will steal sunlight from fundamental life processes, what losses are incurred when the Aerosol Program hazes the sky?  In a critical breach of common sense some of our scientists seem to have forgotten that we need the sun. We need direct sunlight for fundamental life processes such as photosynthesis! Yes, there are creatures who flourish in darkness and without oxygen, but we are not those creatures, nor are countless other sentient beings who share this planet with us. It is astounding, really, that so simple and significant a concept seems to have completely escaped some of the scientific community.

Before continuing with other risks of the proposed Aerosol Program, I want to interject another sun-related solution which was discussed by the Council of Foreign Relations in its May 5, 2008  Unilateral Geoengineering workshop.

“Land Cover Modification  - A few large continental nations might be able to produce significant changes in planetary albedo [Earth’s ability to reflect incoming light]  through massive modifications in land cover. This would entail replacing dark forest cover with much lighter and more reflective cover such as grass lands or steppe.”   “Replacing” is a euphemism for deforestation. Deforestation?  At a time when the planet is said to be suffocating from Carbon Dioxide?  Didn’t we learn as kids that forests are our friends because they breathe in our carbon dioxide and give back to us our oxygen?

Where, in all of this, are the Environmental Impact Statements?  Where is the public awareness?  Why are we not included in the decision-making process?  Where are our legislators who will defend for us the most fundamental life processes which are at stake with these Dr. Strangelove  “solutions”?

Returning, for a moment, to Professor Alan Robock’s November 5, 2009 testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology, and focusing on Solar Radiation Management technology, he lists seventeen risks.
1) SRM could produce drought in Asia and Africa, threatening the food and water supply for billions of people.  [Practical racism aside, the Earth’s atmosphere is a closed system. What goes around, comes around.
2) It will not halt continued ocean acidification from CO2.                                
3) It would deplete ozone.   
4) It would increase dangerous ultraviolet radiation. 
5) With SRM the reduction of direct solar radiation and the increase in diffuse radiation would make the sky less blue and produce much less solar power from systems using focused sunlight. [And would profoundly affect fundamental life processes.
6) Any system to inject particles or their precursors into the stratosphere at the needed rate would have large local environmental impacts. 
7) If discontinued there would be much more rapid warming, much more rapid than would occur without geoengineering.
8) If a series of volcanic eruptions produced unwanted cooling, geoengineering could not be stopped rapidly to compensate.   
9) Geoengineering would put permanent pollution above astronomers’ telescopes.     
10) There will be unexpected consequences.   
11) There will be human error with sophisticated technical systems.  
12) Geoengineering would lessen the public will to address climate change with mitigation. 
13) Do humans have the right to control the climate of the entire planet to benefit them, without consideration of all other species?
14) Potential military use of geoengineering technology raises ethical concerns.    
15) What if some benefit from geoengineering technology while others are harmed?  
16) Who would control geoengineering systems? 
17) The costs of implementing geoengineering would be less than the costs associated with the potential damages of geoengineering.
It is important to add two more problems to Professor Robock’s list  
18) SRM will affect physical and mental health. The Dimming of the Sun and increasing manmade cloud cover are already associated with a rise in Ricketts and other vitamin-D-deficiency diseases, as well as depression and asthma. 
19) SRM will affect life processes vital to agriculture, forestry and natural resources/systems.   


References:
Historical Perspectives on “Fixing the Sky”  November 5, 2009 statement (before the US House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology)  Dr. James Fleming, Professor and Director of Science, Technology and Society, Colby College
Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention November 5, 2009 testimony (before the House Committee on Science and Technology) Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Department of  Global Ecology,  Stanford, California
Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance & Uncertainty November 5, 2009 testimony (before the House Committee on Science & Technology) John Shepherd of the National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Researching Solar Radiation Management as a Climate Policy Option November 5, 2009 statement (before the House Committee on Science and Technology) Lee Lane, Co-director of the American Enterprise Institute Geoengineering Project
Unilateral Geoengineering Council on Foreign Relations May 5, 2008 workshop
To read the November 5, 2009 congressional testimonies on geoengineering please use the following links:
http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org/ Use search engine “Geoengineering”
http://science.house.gov/Publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2668
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2009/Full/5nov/Robock_Testimony.pdf

Contact the Bonnefire Coalition at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or 518-854-7764 in New York State
Learn more about the Bonnefire Coalition by clicking on its icon at www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org