The global economic crisis has revealed the folly of large U.S. budget and trade deficits, as well as of the strong dollar that makes them possible. If it is serious about recovery, the United States must balance the budget, stimulate private saving, and embrace a declining dollar.
Comments
Potential conflicts
This is an excellent, thoughtful discussion of why we need to take the geoengineering option seriously. Yet I'm surprised that the authors spend so little time thinking through how geoengineering efforts might engender serious inter-state tensions. Consider environmental conflicts over river basins, etc., and that multiply that a thousandfold. There will be North-South conflicts -- the authors note that only advanced countries will have the ability to shape the global climate -- and there will conflicts between states that want a milder climate and those that don't. Granted, a "milder climate" will entail many undesirable consequences, but relying on the good sense and far-sightedness of all parties involved doesn't strike me as very sound. Also, it should be obvious that the power to shape the climate can also be a power to make war on an unimaginable scale. Granted, geoengineering will never be extremely fine-grained. But as long as impacts are uneven, it will be understood as a weapon of war. Jamais Cascio has written a lot about this, and I'm eager to read his reaction to the piece.
Well Global warming is the
Well Global warming is the most crucial problem We need to find some strong solution and alternatives for the heavy machines and chemicals.
Payday Advance
Problematic aspects of Geoengineering
Ocean Fertilization and Depletion of Deep-sea O2
(a recipe for a catastrophic anoxia in deep sea water strata)
Typical deep-sea water masses have been isolated from the surface for long periods of time and have limited supplies of dissolved oxygen that are replenished at extremely slow rates.
Multiple strata separate these deep waters from the surface waters and from the atmosphere, so that O2 equilibria in these deep water layers are (a) slow to replenish, and (b) likely to be highly-sensitive to disruption.
Given what we already know about nutrient-induced eutrophication in aquatic systems and the catastrophic effects of the anoxia that results (classic textbook subject-matter), we should be quite skeptical of schemes that imagine wide-scale fertilization the ocean’s surface layers. First, of course, on a century-to-century time scale, deep-sea organisms are adapted to one of the most stable, unchanging environments on earth.
Secondly, while fertilization of the sea’s surface waters (with a dusting of iron, for example, or systems of ocean pumps) may enhance phytoplankton growth, the increased biomass will not be confined to surface waters, but will result in export of tons of additional organics to the deep-water layers.
Heterotrophic microbes in the deep-sea can be expected to respond to an increased import of such organics with a burst of exuberant growth – quickly depleting already limited supplies of dissolved oxygen, and producing a cataclysmic deep-sea anoxia, expanding examples of which have already developed.
Since the ocean covers approximately 70% of earth’s surface and produces the greater portion of the oxygen that we breathe, advocates of wide-scale fertilization, if successful in their campaign, may unwittingly trigger ecosystem disruptions and marine extinction events on an unimagined scale.
Even our brightest, most well-meaning, and most ingenious suggestions need to be measured against the human propensity to error, blunder, and trigger unintended consequences.
Although we are an inventive species, we are also brash and display a reckless lack of humility. Current projects that envision re-engineering the operation of 70% of earth’s biosphere constitute a clear example.
Footnote
Humanity’s central problems today are: (a) the impending arrival of a 7th, 8th, and 9th billion by mid-century, along with (b) the extreme levels of overpopulation / environmental impacts that we already exhibit.
With additional billions on track to join us by mid-century and many other millions rapidly industrializing, the combined effects of today’s planet-wide demographic tidal wave constitute the single greatest risk that our species has ever undertaken.
For instance, can biosystem functioning even survive a continuation of the impacts that we are already exerting today, even without the avalanche of new arrivals who are arriving at a rate of 800,000 additional persons every four days?
As a result, the discussion of geoengineering has the effect of: (a) Distracting us from the true nature of our problem which is overpopulation; (b) Encourages journalists and non-scientists to imagine that scientists can devise some sort technological fix that will allow us to escape (and ignore) the demographic corner into which we have painted ourselves, and (c) Encourages policymakers and economic interests to imagine that business as usual can be pursued for at least a little while longer.
A Mirage
There is a basic error in the idea that cooling the planet overall by increasing albedo offsets human greenhouse gas forcings. Even concentrating reflective materials in polar regions would not change the fact that temperatures will not drop as fast or as far at night, or that winter temperatures will be much higher. Making the poles more reflective won't help much in the winter when they receive little sun light! Warmer night and winter temps affect sea ice formation, which greatly reduces albedo. In the mountain west, where I live, these conditions facilitate insect infestations that are wiping out forests and making some of them net carbon emitters. Cooling the planet overall doesn't solve these effects.
I don't see how geoengineering gets around the inherent difficulty of international cooperation on these issues. It introduces substantial new risks of international conflict. The fact that prominent scholars of environmental politics, including the authors here, as well as Tad Homer-Dixon, are talking about this so seriously is alarming. It seems as if they are throwing in the towel on climate cooperation, just when there's finally a chance to make some progress with new leadership in Washington. This seems ill-timed.
The Geoengineering option
With the 7th,8th , 9th billion population growth coming , perhaps these people should be living or existing underwater , in colonies , then moving into outer -space as the natural series of developments technically that are bound to occur, or should occur - without much difficulty.
Please advise me of the flaws in such simple concepts, as it seems such a natural progression or series of events.
Reply
It seems as if they are throwing in the towel on climate cooperation, just when there's finally a chance to make some progress with new leadership in Washington.
MUST student services | Student help | online university degree
Geo engineering is a field
Geo engineering is a field that will be hugely improved in the next decade or two.We just have to be prepared to that .
frm cheka wedding invitations
Geoengineering concept has to
Geoengineering concept has to be taken in to consideration seriously in the future with rise of global warming. Specially the countries like china as a rising economic super power in the world will have to think about these concepts seriously and will have to implement in big time for the well being of the mankind.
Sterling Silver Rings