{"id":148810,"date":"2013-10-29T15:18:30","date_gmt":"2013-10-29T19:18:30","guid":{"rendered":"\/gazette\/?p=148810"},"modified":"2019-04-03T15:04:42","modified_gmt":"2019-04-03T19:04:42","slug":"geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/","title":{"rendered":"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t
\"\"

Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the pros and cons. Harvard Professor David Keith (right) said the time to begin research into geoengineering is now so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits. Countering the use of geoengineering was Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University, who described a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.<\/p>

Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer<\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tScience & Tech\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t

\n\t\tGeoengineering: Opportunity or folly?\t<\/h1>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\tAlvin Powell\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\tHarvard Staff Writer\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/address>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t\tKeith, Hamilton differ sharply on climate change proposal\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\n<\/header>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\t\t

The technology to shield Earth from sunrays and cut the harmful warming expected in the coming decades is so cheap and readily available that the hurdles to doing it are social, not technical, says Harvard\u2019s David Keith, a supporter of geoengineering.<\/p>\n

Opponents say the idea would not only drain energy from efforts to address climate change\u2019s causes, but also is loaded with unknown risks and the potential for abuse.<\/p>\n

The nascent debate over geoengineering as a solution to our accelerating climate problem was aired Monday at the Science Center. In an event co-sponsored by the Harvard University Center for the Environment<\/a> and the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change<\/a>, the authors of books taking opposing sides made their cases, one offering a scenario in which technology blunts the very worst of warming and buys time for other efforts to take hold, the other describing a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.<\/p>\n

Keith<\/a>, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences<\/a> and professor of public policy at the Kennedy School,<\/a> published \u201cA Case for Climate Engineering\u201d in September. Arguing against research efforts in geoengineering was Clive Hamilton<\/a>, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University<\/a> in Australia and author of \u201cEarthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering,\u201d published in February. Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, moderated the discussion.<\/p>\n

Keith started by arguing that the time to begin research into geoengineering is now, so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits.<\/p>\n

Though \u201cgeoengineering\u201d encompasses several approaches to addressing the climate problem, Monday\u2019s debate focused on the spraying of sulfate aerosols high in the atmosphere, a relatively inexpensive option and the one likeliest to be deployed on a large scale. The effect would mimic the global cooling power of large volcanic eruptions, which send similar chemicals into the atmosphere. The particles reflect sunrays and have been known to cause unusually cool weather \u2014 \u201cvolcanic winters\u201d \u2014 for months or even years afterward.<\/p>\n

The effects of those winters are potentially severe. The 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled global temperatures for several years, while the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, in Indonesia, triggered record snowfall and harsh winters.<\/p>\n

The geoengineering scenario envisioned by Keith is far less dramatic. He suggested gradually ramping up sulfate releases for 50 years starting in 2020 with the aim of reducing warming from climate change by half. Around 2070, with other mitigation strategies yielding results, the program would begin winding down.<\/p>\n

At maximum, Keith said, the plan would release a million tons of sulfates into the atmosphere, about an eighth of what Mount Pinatubo released. The process would be cheap and remarkably straightforward, he said. It could be accomplished with modified versions of today\u2019s aircraft.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll the hard problems are essentially social,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Among the plan\u2019s strengths, Keith said, is that it addresses the lag between cutting carbon emissions and the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by natural processes.<\/p>\n

Though the techniques involved in geoengineering have been known for some time, the issue has been taboo, Keith said, because of worries that it might discourage work on the underlying causes of climate change. Now is the time, he said, to lift the taboo and initiate a research program \u2014 publicly funded to minimize corporate influence, and collaborative to incorporate diverse views.<\/p>\n

Hamilton countered: Regardless of the intent of research, it would draw commercial interests. Once established, those interests would lobby to use the technology that was developed. Researchers on the project would also be a concern, he said, drawing comparisons to the scientists who gave the world nuclear weapons in World War II. Some spent the rest of their lives trying to control what they helped create; others continued to support the development of nuclear bombs as a route to gaining power and influence.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhich paths will geoengineering advocates take?\u201d Hamilton asked.<\/p>\n

Even if governments could keep control over the technology, Hamilton said, the deployment of geoengineering \u2014 with the potential to trigger droughts and flooding \u2014 would lead to the troubling issue of climate being controlled remotely, with scant concern for on-the-ground consequences.<\/p>\n

Also, Hamilton said, the claims around geoengineering make it attractive to opponents of the painful measures needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions, including fossil-fuel giants such as Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. He pointed out that N. Murray Edwards, the billionaire mogul mining Canada\u2019s oil sands, recently invested in Keith\u2019s geoengineering startup, Carbon Engineering.<\/p>\n

These issues, said Hamilton, all but guarantee that geoengineering-based solutions to climate change would not be guided by the best intentions and research. Rather, they would be the intensely political, with powerful interests supporting development and deployment in order to protect business in fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

Keith said there is nothing sinister about Edwards investing in his company, which he sees as Edwards \u201chedging his bets\u201d in the climate debate, in case fossil fuels prove a bad investment. He acknowledged that the technology might be attractive to a fossil fuel company, but said he doesn\u2019t think the technology alone would generate a lot of commercial interest, because it would generate little profit yet carry high risk.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are many cases where we can do a good job of limiting environmental impacts by manipulation [of the environment], and cases where we\u2019ve done that already. The most grandiose [way to describe it] would be to say this is a version of restoration ecology on a planetary scale,\u201d Keith said.<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the climate change strategy’s potential \u2014 pitfalls and benefits \u2014 this week at the Science Center.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":105622744,"featured_media":148815,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"gz_ga_pageviews":22,"gz_ga_lastupdated":"2021-12-09 04:22","document_color_palette":"crimson","author":"Alvin Powell","affiliation":"Harvard Staff Writer","_category_override":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1387],"tags":[2388,3131,3753,8546,8580,10150,13050,14280,16170,24280,25571,32318],"gazette-formats":[],"series":[],"class_list":["post-148810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-science-technology","tag-global-warming","tag-aerosols","tag-alvin-powell","tag-climate-change","tag-clive-hamilton","tag-david-keith","tag-fas","tag-geoengineering","tag-harvard-university-center-for-the-environment","tag-mit-joint-program-on-the-science-and-policy-of-global-change","tag-news-hub","tag-steven-barrett"],"yoast_head":"\nGeoengineering: Opportunity or folly? — Harvard Gazette<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the climate change strategy's potential \u2014 pitfalls and benefits \u2014 this week at the Science Center.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly? — Harvard Gazette\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the climate change strategy's potential \u2014 pitfalls and benefits \u2014 this week at the Science Center.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Harvard Gazette\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-10-29T19:18:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-03T19:04:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"605\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"403\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"harvardgazette\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"harvardgazette\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b\"},\"headline\":\"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly?\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-10-29T19:18:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T19:04:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/\"},\"wordCount\":1036,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"\u201d Global warming\",\"aerosols\",\"Alvin Powell\",\"Climate Change\",\"Clive Hamilton\",\"David Keith\",\"FAS\",\"Geoengineering\",\"Harvard University Center for the Environment\",\"MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change\",\"News Hub\",\"Steven Barrett\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Science & Tech\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"copyrightYear\":\"2013\",\"copyrightHolder\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/\",\"name\":\"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly? — Harvard Gazette\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-10-29T19:18:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T19:04:42+00:00\",\"description\":\"Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the climate change strategy's potential \u2014 pitfalls and benefits \u2014 this week at the Science Center.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg\",\"width\":605,\"height\":403},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/\",\"name\":\"Harvard Gazette\",\"description\":\"Official news from Harvard University covering innovation in teaching, learning, and research\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\",\"name\":\"The Harvard Gazette\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\",\"width\":164,\"height\":64,\"caption\":\"The Harvard Gazette\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b\",\"name\":\"harvardgazette\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly? — Harvard Gazette","description":"Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the climate change strategy's potential \u2014 pitfalls and benefits \u2014 this week at the Science Center.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly? — Harvard Gazette","og_description":"Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the climate change strategy's potential \u2014 pitfalls and benefits \u2014 this week at the Science Center.","og_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/","og_site_name":"Harvard Gazette","article_published_time":"2013-10-29T19:18:30+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-03T19:04:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":605,"height":403,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"harvardgazette","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/"},"author":{"name":"harvardgazette","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b"},"headline":"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly?","datePublished":"2013-10-29T19:18:30+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T19:04:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/"},"wordCount":1036,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg","keywords":["\u201d Global warming","aerosols","Alvin Powell","Climate Change","Clive Hamilton","David Keith","FAS","Geoengineering","Harvard University Center for the Environment","MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change","News Hub","Steven Barrett"],"articleSection":["Science & Tech"],"inLanguage":"en-US","copyrightYear":"2013","copyrightHolder":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"}},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/","name":"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly? — Harvard Gazette","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg","datePublished":"2013-10-29T19:18:30+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T19:04:42+00:00","description":"Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the climate change strategy's potential \u2014 pitfalls and benefits \u2014 this week at the Science Center.","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg","width":605,"height":403},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/","name":"Harvard Gazette","description":"Official news from Harvard University covering innovation in teaching, learning, and research","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization","name":"The Harvard Gazette","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg","width":164,"height":64,"caption":"The Harvard Gazette"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b","name":"harvardgazette"}]}},"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly?","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/10\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\/"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg?w=150","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg"},"articleSection":"Science & Tech","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"harvardgazette"}],"creator":["harvardgazette"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Harvard Gazette","logo":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg"},"keywords":["\u201d global warming","aerosols","alvin powell","climate change","clive hamilton","david keith","fas","geoengineering","harvard university center for the environment","mit joint program on the science and policy of global change","news hub","steven barrett"],"dateCreated":"2013-10-29T19:18:30Z","datePublished":"2013-10-29T19:18:30Z","dateModified":"2019-04-03T19:04:42Z"},"rendered":"<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"wp-parsely-metadata\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"headline\":\"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly?\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/story\\\/2013\\\/10\\\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\\\/\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/story\\\/2013\\\/10\\\/geoengineering-opportunity-or-folly\\\/\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2013\\\/10\\\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg?w=150\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2013\\\/10\\\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg\"},\"articleSection\":\"Science & Tech\",\"author\":[{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"name\":\"harvardgazette\"}],\"creator\":[\"harvardgazette\"],\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"Harvard Gazette\",\"logo\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\"},\"keywords\":[\"\\u201d global warming\",\"aerosols\",\"alvin powell\",\"climate change\",\"clive hamilton\",\"david keith\",\"fas\",\"geoengineering\",\"harvard university center for the environment\",\"mit joint program on the science and policy of global change\",\"news hub\",\"steven barrett\"],\"dateCreated\":\"2013-10-29T19:18:30Z\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-10-29T19:18:30Z\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T19:04:42Z\"}<\/script>","tracker_url":"https:\/\/cdn.parsely.com\/keys\/news.harvard.edu\/p.js"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg","has_blocks":true,"block_data":{"0":{"blockName":"harvard-gazette\/article-header","attrs":{"blockColorPalette":"","coloredHeading":"","creditText":"Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer","displayDetails":"","displayTitle":"","categoryId":1387,"mediaAlt":"","mediaCaption":"Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the pros and cons. Harvard Professor David Keith (right) said the time to begin research into geoengineering is now so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits. Countering the use of geoengineering was Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University, who described a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.","mediaId":148815,"mediaSize":"full","mediaType":"image","mediaUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg","poster":"","title":"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly?","subheading":"Keith, Hamilton differ sharply on climate change proposal","centeredImage":true,"className":"is-style-full-width-text-below","mediaHeight":403,"mediaWidth":605,"backgroundFixed":false,"backgroundTone":"light","coloredBackground":false,"displayOverlay":true,"fadeInText":false,"isAmbient":false,"mediaLength":"","mediaPosition":"","posterText":"","titleAbove":false,"useUncroppedImage":false,"lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img alt=\"\" height=\"403\" loading=\"eager\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg\" width=\"605\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><p class=\"wp-element-caption--caption\">Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the pros and cons. Harvard Professor David Keith (right) said the time to begin research into geoengineering is now so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits. Countering the use of geoengineering was Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University, who described a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.<\/p><p class=\"wp-element-caption--credit\">Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer<\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","innerContent":["<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img alt=\"\" height=\"403\" loading=\"eager\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg\" width=\"605\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><p class=\"wp-element-caption--caption\">Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the pros and cons. Harvard Professor David Keith (right) said the time to begin research into geoengineering is now so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits. Countering the use of geoengineering was Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University, who described a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.<\/p><p class=\"wp-element-caption--credit\">Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer<\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n"],"rendered":"<header\n\tclass=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-article-header alignfull article-header is-style-full-width-text-below centered-image\"\n\tstyle=\" \"\n>\n\t<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img alt=\"\" height=\"403\" loading=\"eager\" src=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/102813_geoengineer_071_605.jpg\" width=\"605\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><p class=\"wp-element-caption--caption\">Scholars on opposite sides of geoengineering debated the pros and cons. Harvard Professor David Keith (right) said the time to begin research into geoengineering is now so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits. Countering the use of geoengineering was Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University, who described a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.<\/p><p class=\"wp-element-caption--credit\">Jon Chase\/Harvard Staff Photographer<\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\t<div class=\"article-header__content\">\n\t\t\t<a\n\t\t\tclass=\"article-header__category\"\n\t\t\thref=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/science-technology\/\"\n\t\t>\n\t\t\tScience & Tech\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t<h1 class=\"article-header__title wp-block-heading \">\n\t\tGeoengineering: Opportunity or folly?\t<\/h1>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\t<div class=\"article-header__meta\">\n\t\t<div class=\"wp-block-post-author\">\n\t\t\t<address class=\"wp-block-post-author__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p class=\"author wp-block-post-author__name\">\n\t\tAlvin Powell\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"wp-block-post-author__byline\">\n\t\t\tHarvard Staff Writer\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/address>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t<time class=\"article-header__date\" datetime=\"2013-10-29\">\n\t\t\tOctober 29, 2013\t\t<\/time>\n\n\t\t<span class=\"article-header__reading-time\">\n\t\t\t6 min read\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t<h2 class=\"article-header__subheading wp-block-heading\">\n\t\t\tKeith, Hamilton differ sharply on climate change proposal\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\n<\/header>\n"},"2":{"blockName":"core\/group","attrs":{"templateLock":false,"metadata":{"name":"Article content"},"align":"wide","layout":{"type":"constrained","justifyContent":"center"},"tagName":"div","lock":[],"className":"","style":[],"backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","ariaLabel":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[{"blockName":"core\/freeform","attrs":{"content":"","lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\t\t<p>The technology to shield Earth from sunrays and cut the harmful warming expected in the coming decades is so cheap and readily available that the hurdles to doing it are social, not technical, says Harvard\u2019s David Keith, a supporter of geoengineering.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents say the idea would not only drain energy from efforts to address climate change\u2019s causes, but also is loaded with unknown risks and the potential for abuse.<\/p>\n<p>The nascent debate over geoengineering as a solution to our accelerating climate problem was aired Monday at the Science Center. In an event co-sponsored by the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.environment.harvard.edu\">Harvard University Center for the Environment<\/a> and the <a href=\"http:\/\/globalchange.mit.edu\/\">MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change<\/a>, the authors of books taking opposing sides made their cases, one offering a scenario in which technology blunts the very worst of warming and buys time for other efforts to take hold, the other describing a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.seas.harvard.edu\/directory\/dkeith\">Keith<\/a>, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.seas.harvard.edu\">School of Engineering and Applied Sciences<\/a> and professor of public policy at the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hks.harvard.edu\">Kennedy School,<\/a> published \u201cA Case for Climate Engineering\u201d in September. Arguing against research efforts in geoengineering was <a href=\"http:\/\/clivehamilton.com\/\">Clive Hamilton<\/a>, a professor of public ethics at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.csu.edu.au\/\">Charles Sturt University<\/a> in Australia and author of \u201cEarthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering,\u201d published in February. Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, moderated the discussion.<\/p>\n<p>Keith started by arguing that the time to begin research into geoengineering is now, so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits.<\/p>\n<p>Though \u201cgeoengineering\u201d encompasses several approaches to addressing the climate problem, Monday\u2019s debate focused on the spraying of sulfate aerosols high in the atmosphere, a relatively inexpensive option and the one likeliest to be deployed on a large scale. The effect would mimic the global cooling power of large volcanic eruptions, which send similar chemicals into the atmosphere. The particles reflect sunrays and have been known to cause unusually cool weather \u2014 \u201cvolcanic winters\u201d \u2014 for months or even years afterward.<\/p>\n<p>The effects of those winters are potentially severe. The 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled global temperatures for several years, while the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, in Indonesia, triggered record snowfall and harsh winters.<\/p>\n<p>The geoengineering scenario envisioned by Keith is far less dramatic. He suggested gradually ramping up sulfate releases for 50 years starting in 2020 with the aim of reducing warming from climate change by half. Around 2070, with other mitigation strategies yielding results, the program would begin winding down.<\/p>\n<p>At maximum, Keith said, the plan would release a million tons of sulfates into the atmosphere, about an eighth of what Mount Pinatubo released. The process would be cheap and remarkably straightforward, he said. It could be accomplished with modified versions of today\u2019s aircraft.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAll the hard problems are essentially social,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>Among the plan\u2019s strengths, Keith said, is that it addresses the lag between cutting carbon emissions and the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by natural processes.<\/p>\n<p>Though the techniques involved in geoengineering have been known for some time, the issue has been taboo, Keith said, because of worries that it might discourage work on the underlying causes of climate change. Now is the time, he said, to lift the taboo and initiate a research program \u2014 publicly funded to minimize corporate influence, and collaborative to incorporate diverse views.<\/p>\n<p>Hamilton countered: Regardless of the intent of research, it would draw commercial interests. Once established, those interests would lobby to use the technology that was developed. Researchers on the project would also be a concern, he said, drawing comparisons to the scientists who gave the world nuclear weapons in World War II. Some spent the rest of their lives trying to control what they helped create; others continued to support the development of nuclear bombs as a route to gaining power and influence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhich paths will geoengineering advocates take?\u201d Hamilton asked.<\/p>\n<p>Even if governments could keep control over the technology, Hamilton said, the deployment of geoengineering \u2014 with the potential to trigger droughts and flooding \u2014 would lead to the troubling issue of climate being controlled remotely, with scant concern for on-the-ground consequences.<\/p>\n<p>Also, Hamilton said, the claims around geoengineering make it attractive to opponents of the painful measures needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions, including fossil-fuel giants such as Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. He pointed out that N. Murray Edwards, the billionaire mogul mining Canada\u2019s oil sands, recently invested in Keith\u2019s geoengineering startup, Carbon Engineering.<\/p>\n<p>These issues, said Hamilton, all but guarantee that geoengineering-based solutions to climate change would not be guided by the best intentions and research. Rather, they would be the intensely political, with powerful interests supporting development and deployment in order to protect business in fossil fuels.<\/p>\n<p>Keith said there is nothing sinister about Edwards investing in his company, which he sees as Edwards \u201chedging his bets\u201d in the climate debate, in case fossil fuels prove a bad investment. He acknowledged that the technology might be attractive to a fossil fuel company, but said he doesn\u2019t think the technology alone would generate a lot of commercial interest, because it would generate little profit yet carry high risk.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere are many cases where we can do a good job of limiting environmental impacts by manipulation [of the environment], and cases where we\u2019ve done that already. The most grandiose [way to describe it] would be to say this is a version of restoration ecology on a planetary scale,\u201d Keith said.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n\t\t<p>The technology to shield Earth from sunrays and cut the harmful warming expected in the coming decades is so cheap and readily available that the hurdles to doing it are social, not technical, says Harvard\u2019s David Keith, a supporter of geoengineering.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents say the idea would not only drain energy from efforts to address climate change\u2019s causes, but also is loaded with unknown risks and the potential for abuse.<\/p>\n<p>The nascent debate over geoengineering as a solution to our accelerating climate problem was aired Monday at the Science Center. In an event co-sponsored by the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.environment.harvard.edu\">Harvard University Center for the Environment<\/a> and the <a href=\"http:\/\/globalchange.mit.edu\/\">MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change<\/a>, the authors of books taking opposing sides made their cases, one offering a scenario in which technology blunts the very worst of warming and buys time for other efforts to take hold, the other describing a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.seas.harvard.edu\/directory\/dkeith\">Keith<\/a>, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.seas.harvard.edu\">School of Engineering and Applied Sciences<\/a> and professor of public policy at the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hks.harvard.edu\">Kennedy School,<\/a> published \u201cA Case for Climate Engineering\u201d in September. Arguing against research efforts in geoengineering was <a href=\"http:\/\/clivehamilton.com\/\">Clive Hamilton<\/a>, a professor of public ethics at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.csu.edu.au\/\">Charles Sturt University<\/a> in Australia and author of \u201cEarthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering,\u201d published in February. Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, moderated the discussion.<\/p>\n<p>Keith started by arguing that the time to begin research into geoengineering is now, so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits.<\/p>\n<p>Though \u201cgeoengineering\u201d encompasses several approaches to addressing the climate problem, Monday\u2019s debate focused on the spraying of sulfate aerosols high in the atmosphere, a relatively inexpensive option and the one likeliest to be deployed on a large scale. The effect would mimic the global cooling power of large volcanic eruptions, which send similar chemicals into the atmosphere. The particles reflect sunrays and have been known to cause unusually cool weather \u2014 \u201cvolcanic winters\u201d \u2014 for months or even years afterward.<\/p>\n<p>The effects of those winters are potentially severe. The 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled global temperatures for several years, while the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, in Indonesia, triggered record snowfall and harsh winters.<\/p>\n<p>The geoengineering scenario envisioned by Keith is far less dramatic. He suggested gradually ramping up sulfate releases for 50 years starting in 2020 with the aim of reducing warming from climate change by half. Around 2070, with other mitigation strategies yielding results, the program would begin winding down.<\/p>\n<p>At maximum, Keith said, the plan would release a million tons of sulfates into the atmosphere, about an eighth of what Mount Pinatubo released. The process would be cheap and remarkably straightforward, he said. It could be accomplished with modified versions of today\u2019s aircraft.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAll the hard problems are essentially social,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>Among the plan\u2019s strengths, Keith said, is that it addresses the lag between cutting carbon emissions and the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by natural processes.<\/p>\n<p>Though the techniques involved in geoengineering have been known for some time, the issue has been taboo, Keith said, because of worries that it might discourage work on the underlying causes of climate change. Now is the time, he said, to lift the taboo and initiate a research program \u2014 publicly funded to minimize corporate influence, and collaborative to incorporate diverse views.<\/p>\n<p>Hamilton countered: Regardless of the intent of research, it would draw commercial interests. Once established, those interests would lobby to use the technology that was developed. Researchers on the project would also be a concern, he said, drawing comparisons to the scientists who gave the world nuclear weapons in World War II. Some spent the rest of their lives trying to control what they helped create; others continued to support the development of nuclear bombs as a route to gaining power and influence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhich paths will geoengineering advocates take?\u201d Hamilton asked.<\/p>\n<p>Even if governments could keep control over the technology, Hamilton said, the deployment of geoengineering \u2014 with the potential to trigger droughts and flooding \u2014 would lead to the troubling issue of climate being controlled remotely, with scant concern for on-the-ground consequences.<\/p>\n<p>Also, Hamilton said, the claims around geoengineering make it attractive to opponents of the painful measures needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions, including fossil-fuel giants such as Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. He pointed out that N. Murray Edwards, the billionaire mogul mining Canada\u2019s oil sands, recently invested in Keith\u2019s geoengineering startup, Carbon Engineering.<\/p>\n<p>These issues, said Hamilton, all but guarantee that geoengineering-based solutions to climate change would not be guided by the best intentions and research. Rather, they would be the intensely political, with powerful interests supporting development and deployment in order to protect business in fossil fuels.<\/p>\n<p>Keith said there is nothing sinister about Edwards investing in his company, which he sees as Edwards \u201chedging his bets\u201d in the climate debate, in case fossil fuels prove a bad investment. He acknowledged that the technology might be attractive to a fossil fuel company, but said he doesn\u2019t think the technology alone would generate a lot of commercial interest, because it would generate little profit yet carry high risk.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere are many cases where we can do a good job of limiting environmental impacts by manipulation [of the environment], and cases where we\u2019ve done that already. The most grandiose [way to describe it] would be to say this is a version of restoration ecology on a planetary scale,\u201d Keith said.<\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n\t\t<p>The technology to shield Earth from sunrays and cut the harmful warming expected in the coming decades is so cheap and readily available that the hurdles to doing it are social, not technical, says Harvard\u2019s David Keith, a supporter of geoengineering.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents say the idea would not only drain energy from efforts to address climate change\u2019s causes, but also is loaded with unknown risks and the potential for abuse.<\/p>\n<p>The nascent debate over geoengineering as a solution to our accelerating climate problem was aired Monday at the Science Center. In an event co-sponsored by the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.environment.harvard.edu\">Harvard University Center for the Environment<\/a> and the <a href=\"http:\/\/globalchange.mit.edu\/\">MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change<\/a>, the authors of books taking opposing sides made their cases, one offering a scenario in which technology blunts the very worst of warming and buys time for other efforts to take hold, the other describing a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.seas.harvard.edu\/directory\/dkeith\">Keith<\/a>, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.seas.harvard.edu\">School of Engineering and Applied Sciences<\/a> and professor of public policy at the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hks.harvard.edu\">Kennedy School,<\/a> published \u201cA Case for Climate Engineering\u201d in September. Arguing against research efforts in geoengineering was <a href=\"http:\/\/clivehamilton.com\/\">Clive Hamilton<\/a>, a professor of public ethics at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.csu.edu.au\/\">Charles Sturt University<\/a> in Australia and author of \u201cEarthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering,\u201d published in February. Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, moderated the discussion.<\/p>\n<p>Keith started by arguing that the time to begin research into geoengineering is now, so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits.<\/p>\n<p>Though \u201cgeoengineering\u201d encompasses several approaches to addressing the climate problem, Monday\u2019s debate focused on the spraying of sulfate aerosols high in the atmosphere, a relatively inexpensive option and the one likeliest to be deployed on a large scale. The effect would mimic the global cooling power of large volcanic eruptions, which send similar chemicals into the atmosphere. The particles reflect sunrays and have been known to cause unusually cool weather \u2014 \u201cvolcanic winters\u201d \u2014 for months or even years afterward.<\/p>\n<p>The effects of those winters are potentially severe. The 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled global temperatures for several years, while the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, in Indonesia, triggered record snowfall and harsh winters.<\/p>\n<p>The geoengineering scenario envisioned by Keith is far less dramatic. He suggested gradually ramping up sulfate releases for 50 years starting in 2020 with the aim of reducing warming from climate change by half. Around 2070, with other mitigation strategies yielding results, the program would begin winding down.<\/p>\n<p>At maximum, Keith said, the plan would release a million tons of sulfates into the atmosphere, about an eighth of what Mount Pinatubo released. The process would be cheap and remarkably straightforward, he said. It could be accomplished with modified versions of today\u2019s aircraft.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAll the hard problems are essentially social,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>Among the plan\u2019s strengths, Keith said, is that it addresses the lag between cutting carbon emissions and the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by natural processes.<\/p>\n<p>Though the techniques involved in geoengineering have been known for some time, the issue has been taboo, Keith said, because of worries that it might discourage work on the underlying causes of climate change. Now is the time, he said, to lift the taboo and initiate a research program \u2014 publicly funded to minimize corporate influence, and collaborative to incorporate diverse views.<\/p>\n<p>Hamilton countered: Regardless of the intent of research, it would draw commercial interests. Once established, those interests would lobby to use the technology that was developed. Researchers on the project would also be a concern, he said, drawing comparisons to the scientists who gave the world nuclear weapons in World War II. Some spent the rest of their lives trying to control what they helped create; others continued to support the development of nuclear bombs as a route to gaining power and influence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhich paths will geoengineering advocates take?\u201d Hamilton asked.<\/p>\n<p>Even if governments could keep control over the technology, Hamilton said, the deployment of geoengineering \u2014 with the potential to trigger droughts and flooding \u2014 would lead to the troubling issue of climate being controlled remotely, with scant concern for on-the-ground consequences.<\/p>\n<p>Also, Hamilton said, the claims around geoengineering make it attractive to opponents of the painful measures needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions, including fossil-fuel giants such as Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. He pointed out that N. Murray Edwards, the billionaire mogul mining Canada\u2019s oil sands, recently invested in Keith\u2019s geoengineering startup, Carbon Engineering.<\/p>\n<p>These issues, said Hamilton, all but guarantee that geoengineering-based solutions to climate change would not be guided by the best intentions and research. Rather, they would be the intensely political, with powerful interests supporting development and deployment in order to protect business in fossil fuels.<\/p>\n<p>Keith said there is nothing sinister about Edwards investing in his company, which he sees as Edwards \u201chedging his bets\u201d in the climate debate, in case fossil fuels prove a bad investment. He acknowledged that the technology might be attractive to a fossil fuel company, but said he doesn\u2019t think the technology alone would generate a lot of commercial interest, because it would generate little profit yet carry high risk.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere are many cases where we can do a good job of limiting environmental impacts by manipulation [of the environment], and cases where we\u2019ve done that already. The most grandiose [way to describe it] would be to say this is a version of restoration ecology on a planetary scale,\u201d Keith said.<\/p>\n"}],"innerHTML":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide\">\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n","innerContent":["\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide\">\n\n","\n\n<\/div>\n"],"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-content-justification-center is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n\n\n\t\t<p>The technology to shield Earth from sunrays and cut the harmful warming expected in the coming decades is so cheap and readily available that the hurdles to doing it are social, not technical, says Harvard\u2019s David Keith, a supporter of geoengineering.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents say the idea would not only drain energy from efforts to address climate change\u2019s causes, but also is loaded with unknown risks and the potential for abuse.<\/p>\n<p>The nascent debate over geoengineering as a solution to our accelerating climate problem was aired Monday at the Science Center. In an event co-sponsored by the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.environment.harvard.edu\">Harvard University Center for the Environment<\/a> and the <a href=\"http:\/\/globalchange.mit.edu\/\">MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change<\/a>, the authors of books taking opposing sides made their cases, one offering a scenario in which technology blunts the very worst of warming and buys time for other efforts to take hold, the other describing a future where the root causes of warming are ignored while weather is controlled by corporations or governments far removed from the effects.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.seas.harvard.edu\/directory\/dkeith\">Keith<\/a>, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.seas.harvard.edu\">School of Engineering and Applied Sciences<\/a> and professor of public policy at the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hks.harvard.edu\">Kennedy School,<\/a> published \u201cA Case for Climate Engineering\u201d in September. Arguing against research efforts in geoengineering was <a href=\"http:\/\/clivehamilton.com\/\">Clive Hamilton<\/a>, a professor of public ethics at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.csu.edu.au\/\">Charles Sturt University<\/a> in Australia and author of \u201cEarthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering,\u201d published in February. Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, moderated the discussion.<\/p>\n<p>Keith started by arguing that the time to begin research into geoengineering is now, so that science will have a chance to learn about potential pitfalls before the worst of warming hits.<\/p>\n<p>Though \u201cgeoengineering\u201d encompasses several approaches to addressing the climate problem, Monday\u2019s debate focused on the spraying of sulfate aerosols high in the atmosphere, a relatively inexpensive option and the one likeliest to be deployed on a large scale. The effect would mimic the global cooling power of large volcanic eruptions, which send similar chemicals into the atmosphere. The particles reflect sunrays and have been known to cause unusually cool weather \u2014 \u201cvolcanic winters\u201d \u2014 for months or even years afterward.<\/p>\n<p>The effects of those winters are potentially severe. The 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled global temperatures for several years, while the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, in Indonesia, triggered record snowfall and harsh winters.<\/p>\n<p>The geoengineering scenario envisioned by Keith is far less dramatic. He suggested gradually ramping up sulfate releases for 50 years starting in 2020 with the aim of reducing warming from climate change by half. Around 2070, with other mitigation strategies yielding results, the program would begin winding down.<\/p>\n<p>At maximum, Keith said, the plan would release a million tons of sulfates into the atmosphere, about an eighth of what Mount Pinatubo released. The process would be cheap and remarkably straightforward, he said. It could be accomplished with modified versions of today\u2019s aircraft.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAll the hard problems are essentially social,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>Among the plan\u2019s strengths, Keith said, is that it addresses the lag between cutting carbon emissions and the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by natural processes.<\/p>\n<p>Though the techniques involved in geoengineering have been known for some time, the issue has been taboo, Keith said, because of worries that it might discourage work on the underlying causes of climate change. Now is the time, he said, to lift the taboo and initiate a research program \u2014 publicly funded to minimize corporate influence, and collaborative to incorporate diverse views.<\/p>\n<p>Hamilton countered: Regardless of the intent of research, it would draw commercial interests. Once established, those interests would lobby to use the technology that was developed. Researchers on the project would also be a concern, he said, drawing comparisons to the scientists who gave the world nuclear weapons in World War II. Some spent the rest of their lives trying to control what they helped create; others continued to support the development of nuclear bombs as a route to gaining power and influence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhich paths will geoengineering advocates take?\u201d Hamilton asked.<\/p>\n<p>Even if governments could keep control over the technology, Hamilton said, the deployment of geoengineering \u2014 with the potential to trigger droughts and flooding \u2014 would lead to the troubling issue of climate being controlled remotely, with scant concern for on-the-ground consequences.<\/p>\n<p>Also, Hamilton said, the claims around geoengineering make it attractive to opponents of the painful measures needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions, including fossil-fuel giants such as Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. He pointed out that N. Murray Edwards, the billionaire mogul mining Canada\u2019s oil sands, recently invested in Keith\u2019s geoengineering startup, Carbon Engineering.<\/p>\n<p>These issues, said Hamilton, all but guarantee that geoengineering-based solutions to climate change would not be guided by the best intentions and research. Rather, they would be the intensely political, with powerful interests supporting development and deployment in order to protect business in fossil fuels.<\/p>\n<p>Keith said there is nothing sinister about Edwards investing in his company, which he sees as Edwards \u201chedging his bets\u201d in the climate debate, in case fossil fuels prove a bad investment. He acknowledged that the technology might be attractive to a fossil fuel company, but said he doesn\u2019t think the technology alone would generate a lot of commercial interest, because it would generate little profit yet carry high risk.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere are many cases where we can do a good job of limiting environmental impacts by manipulation [of the environment], and cases where we\u2019ve done that already. The most grandiose [way to describe it] would be to say this is a version of restoration ecology on a planetary scale,\u201d Keith said.<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n"}},"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":166268,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2015\/02\/climate-engineering-in-from-the-cold\/","url_meta":{"origin":148810,"position":0},"title":"Climate engineering: In from the cold","author":"harvardgazette","date":"February 20, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Harvard Professor David Keith says that two new reports by the National Academy of Sciences are likely to boost a deeper look at possible geoengineering options for climate engineering.","rel":"","context":"In "Science & Tech"","block_context":{"text":"Science & Tech","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/science-technology\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/nas_clouds_courtesy-flickr-user-janne-morem.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/nas_clouds_courtesy-flickr-user-janne-morem.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/nas_clouds_courtesy-flickr-user-janne-morem.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":121154,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2012\/10\/targeting-solar-geoengineering-to-minimize-risk-and-inequality\/","url_meta":{"origin":148810,"position":1},"title":"Cautious geohacking","author":"harvardgazette","date":"October 22, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"By tailoring geoengineering efforts by region and by need, a new model promises to maximize the effectiveness of solar radiation management while mitigating its potential side effects and risks.","rel":"","context":"In "Science & Tech"","block_context":{"text":"Science & Tech","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/science-technology\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/seas_geo_ice2.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/seas_geo_ice2.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/seas_geo_ice2.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":125716,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2012\/12\/a-notion-to-cool-the-skies\/","url_meta":{"origin":148810,"position":2},"title":"A notion to cool the skies","author":"harvardgazette","date":"December 12, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"An international regulatory framework is needed to govern possible research and deployment of engineering approaches to counter climate change, an authority on environmental law says.","rel":"","context":"In "Science & Tech"","block_context":{"text":"Science & Tech","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/science-technology\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/12\/120712_geo_040_605.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/12\/120712_geo_040_605.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/12\/120712_geo_040_605.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":215451,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2016\/12\/mitigating-the-risk-of-geoengineering\/","url_meta":{"origin":148810,"position":3},"title":"Mitigating the risk of geoengineering","author":"gazettejohnbaglione","date":"December 12, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"To halt the rise of global temperatures, Harvard researchers are looking at solar geoengineering, which would inject light-reflecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to cool the planet.","rel":"","context":"In "Science & Tech"","block_context":{"text":"Science & Tech","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/science-technology\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/earthgeopic_605.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/earthgeopic_605.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/earthgeopic_605.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":335405,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2021\/11\/harvard-welcomes-elizabeth-kolbert-for-climate-talk\/","url_meta":{"origin":148810,"position":4},"title":"Elizabeth Kolbert sees a world depleted, and possibly defeated, by climate change","author":"Lian Parsons","date":"November 19, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"New Yorker writer Elizabeth Kolbert and Planetary Health Alliance Director Samuel Myers discussed whether humans can save the Earth during a \u201cWeather Reports\u201d panel hosted by the Harvard Divinity School.","rel":"","context":"In "Science & Tech"","block_context":{"text":"Science & Tech","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/science-technology\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Elizabeth Kolbert.","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/111521_HDSClimate_251.jpeg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/111521_HDSClimate_251.jpeg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/111521_HDSClimate_251.jpeg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/111521_HDSClimate_251.jpeg?resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":23843,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2009\/09\/earth-engineering\/","url_meta":{"origin":148810,"position":5},"title":"Expert: Lift taboo on Earth engineering","author":"harvardgazette","date":"September 23, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"University of Calgary Professor David Keith calls for investment in geoengineering research as part of the search for solutions to climate change.","rel":"","context":"In "Science & Tech"","block_context":{"text":"Science & Tech","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/science-technology\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/09\/092209_keith_197.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/09\/092209_keith_197.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/09\/092209_keith_197.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148810","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/105622744"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=148810"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148810\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":270212,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148810\/revisions\/270212"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/148815"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148810"},{"taxonomy":"format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gazette-formats?post=148810"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=148810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}