[Marxism] Geoengineering

Les Schaffer schaffer at optonline.net
Tue Apr 2 11:45:36 MDT 2013

On 04/02/2013 09:03 AM, Shane Hopkinson wrote:
> My gut feeling is that this is crazy!

i heard they succeeding in terraforming on LV426, so why shouldn't it 
work here on Earth? and don't tell me the capitalist system is, at root, 
at fault. Ripley showed the capitalists can be defeated. </>

Hans' recommendation sounds like a good read. other than that, look at 
the scholarly literature, par example, the last sentence here:

Climatic Change (2009) 92:243–259

Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: Earth system 
vulnerability to technological failure
Victor Brovkin · Vladimir Petoukhov · Martin Claussen · Eva Bauer · 
David Archer · Carlo Jaeger
Received: 10 April 2007 / Accepted: 19 June 2008 / Published online: 17 
September 2008
© The Author(s) 2008.

Abstract We use a coupled climate–carbon cycle model of intermediate 
to investigate scenarios of stratospheric sulfur injections as a measure 
to compensate
for CO2 -induced global warming. The baseline scenario includes the 
burning of
5,000 GtC of fossil fuels. A full compensation of CO2 -induced warming 
requires a
load of about 13 MtS in the stratosphere at the peak of atmospheric CO2 
tion. Keeping global warming below 2◦ C reduces this load to 9 MtS. 
of CO2 forcing by stratospheric aerosols leads to a global reduction in 
warmer winters in the high northern latitudes and cooler summers over 
hemisphere landmasses. The average surface ocean pH decreases by 0.7, 
the calcifying ability of marine organisms. Because of the millennial 
persistence of
the fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere, high levels of stratospheric 
aerosol loading
would have to continue for thousands of years until CO2 was removed from the
atmosphere. A termination of stratospheric aerosol loading results in 
abrupt global
warming of up to 5◦ C within several decades, a vulnerability of the 
Earth system to
technological failure.

or this (SRM=solar radiation management):

Crop yields in a geoengineered climate

J. Pongratz, D. B. Lobell, L. Cao & K. Caldeira

Nature Climate Change 2, 101–105 (2012)
Received 22 July 2011 Accepted 07 December 2011 Published online 22 
January 2012

Crop models predict that recent and future climate change may have 
adverse effects on crop yields1, 2. Intentional deflection of sunlight 
away from the Earth could diminish the amount of climate change in a 
high-CO2 world3, 4, 5, 6. However, it has been suggested that this 
diminution would come at the cost of threatening the food and water 
supply for billions of people7. Here, we carry out high-CO2, 
geoengineering and control simulations using two climate models to 
predict the effects on global crop yields. We find that in our models 
solar-radiation geoengineering in a high-CO2 climate generally causes 
crop yields to increase, largely because temperature stresses are 
diminished while the benefits of CO2 fertilization are retained. 
Nevertheless, possible yield losses on the local scale as well as known 
and unknown side effects and risks associated with geoengineering 
indicate that the most certain way to reduce climate risks to global 
food security is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.


As the accelerating rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 over
the past decades has revived the idea of attempting to offset
some climate change by SRM, a comprehensive evaluation of its
environmental and socioeconomic consequences is needed. Here,
we have estimated the impact of SRM on global crop yields for
a widely discussed scheme of SRM, modifying the stratospheric
aerosol concentration13 . We do not find substantial reductions in
yields by SRM compared to the control climate; on the contrary,
the yields and production of maize, wheat and rice increase at
the global mean and across most latitudes when SRM is carried
out in a high-CO2 world. This is largely because the changes in
climate, in particular temperature, with a doubling of atmospheric
CO2 concentration are substantially reduced by SRM, while the
beneficial effect of CO2 fertilization on plant productivity remains
active. We note, however, that an SRM deployment would be
unlikely to maintain the economic status quo, as market shares of
agricultural output may change with regional climate change. More
importantly, geoengineering by SRM does not address a range of
other detrimental consequences of climate change, such as ocean
acidification20 , which could also affect food security through effects
on marine food webs. Finally, SRM poses substantial anticipated
and unanticipated risks by interfering with complex systems that
are not fully understood. Therefore, although SRM may allow
beneficial effects of CO2 fertilization at a comparatively low level
of climate change, the potential for such approaches to reduce
the overall risks is still far from established. The safest option to
reduce the climate risks to global food security may be to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases.


More information about the Marxism mailing list