West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

Geoengineering CP Aff Responses

Geoengineering Fails

Geoengineering fails – computer models

Morgan Clendaniel, editor of co-exist, the deputy editor of GOOD, 4-7-2014, “5 Insane Geoengineering Ideas That Won't Save The Planet--Just Make Things Worse,” Fast Coexist, http://www.fastcoexist.com/3027399/5-insane-geo-engineering-ideas-that-wont-save-the-planet-just-make-things-worse, Accessed 4-8-2014.

A new study from Germany runs the rule over five possible solutions. Using a computer model to simulate many of the Earth's systems (oceans, vegetation, atmosphere), researchers at the Geomar Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research, in Kiel, compared the positive and negative effects on the environment. All the solutions had been modeled individually before, but never using the same computer and emissions scenarios.¶ The result? Even the most workable ideas for climate engineering don't offer much in the way of upside, but provide plenty of downside, the researchers say. In some cases, they may even exacerbate climate disorder. "Our simulations suggest that the potential for these types of climate engineering to make up for failed mitigation may be very limited," the paper, which is published in Nature Communications, says.

Collective action dynamics prevent geoengineering from being effective

Morgan Clendaniel, editor of co-exist, the deputy editor of GOOD, 4-7-2014, “5 Insane Geoengineering Ideas That Won't Save The Planet--Just Make Things Worse,” Fast Coexist, http://www.fastcoexist.com/3027399/5-insane-geo-engineering-ideas-that-wont-save-the-planet-just-make-things-worse, Accessed 4-8-2014.

There are other reasons to be skeptical about geo-engineering apart from the unpredictable processes these experiments might unleash. For one, governments would probably have to agree at a global level on any large-scale actions--something that is hard to see, as geo-engineering, like climate change, could benefit some countries and imperil others.¶ Keller isn't completely dismissive. He thinks geo-engineering like SRM could be useful in some circumstances, in conjunction with reducing emissions. But he thinks the latter is much more important. "I think if someone tries these methods, we need to know what could happen--that these are the side-effects," he says. "Personally, though, I would prefer to see emissions reduced than doing geo-engineering."

Geoengineering kills everyone

Michael Specter, staff writer, 5-14-2012, “The Climate Fixers,” The New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_specter, Accessed 4-8-2014.

For years, even to entertain the possibility of human intervention on such a scale—geoengineering, as the practice is known—has been denounced as hubris. Predicting long-term climatic behavior by using computer models has proved difficult, and the notion of fiddling with the planet’s climate based on the results generated by those models worries even scientists who are fully engaged in the research. “There will be no easy victories, but at some point we are going to have to take the facts seriously,’’ David Keith, a professor of engineering and public policy at Harvard and one of geoengineering’s most thoughtful supporters, told me. “Nonetheless,’’ he added, “it is hyperbolic to say this, but no less true: when you start to reflect light away from the planet, you can easily imagine a chain of events that would extinguish life on earth.”

Geoengineering Fails

Geoengineering fails and you should be skeptical of their evidence

Marc Gunther, veteran journalist, speaker, and writer whose focus is business and sustainability, contributing editor at FORTUNE magazine, 2-9-2010, “Is geoengineering inevitable?” http://www.marcgunther.com/2010/02/09/is-geoengineering-inevitable/, Accessed 4-8-2014.

In any event, the very fact the crude geoengineering can be done inexpensively and easily is one reason why it’s worrisome. “It is cheap enough so that small countries could act alone,” Keith said. In theory, a wealthy island nation that felt threatened by rising sea levels could try geoengineering. Countries have done dumb things before. Surprisingly little research has been done on geoengineering. A article by David Victor et al called The Geoengineering Option, published last spring in Foreign Affairs, said: Nearly the entire community of geoengineering scientists could fit comfortably in a single university seminar room, and the entire scientific literature on the subject could be read during the course of a transatlantic flight. Nor is it clear how geoengineering can be tested, and how useful any tests would be. Writing in the Jan. 29 issue of Science, Alan Robock et al tackles this subject and says that “stratospheric geoengineering cannot be tested in the atmosphere without full-scale deployment.” (Here’s a link to their story and here’s one to Keith’s work.) David Victor, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, and an author of the Foreign Affairs article, told the EDF gathering: “The odds of deploying a bad geoengineering system are greater today than the odds of responsible nations coming together and deploying something that is well-designed.”

Geoengineering can’t solve ocean acidification – doesn’t remove the CO2

Ronald Bailey, reason’s science correspondent, 6-10-2008, “An Emergency Cooling System for the Planet,” Reason Magazine, http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/10/an-emergency-cooling-system-fo, Accessed 4-8-2014.

But one big problem that sulfate injection would not solve is the continuing acidification of the ocean that is occurring as extra carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolves into the seas. This acidification could eventually pose problems for creatures such as mollusks and corals that use calcium carbonate to grow their shells and skeletons.

Status quo warming ensures acidification – causes extinction

Guy McPherson, is professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, Biological Sciences, 6-20-2012, “We’re done,” Nature Bats Last, http://guymcpherson.com/2012/06/were-done/, Accessed 4-8-2014.

We also know that the situation is far worse than indicated by recent data and models (which are reviewed in the following paragraphs). We’ve known for more than a decade what happens when the planes stop flying: Because particulates were removed when airplanes were grounded, Earth’s diurnal temperature range increased by more than 1 C in the three days following 11 September 2001. If the change in range leans toward warming, in other words, Earth’s temperature is already nearly 2 C higher than the industrial-revolution baseline. And because of positive feedbacks, 2 C leads directly and rapidly to 6 C, acidification-induced death of the world’s oceans, and the near-term demise of Homo sapiens. We can’t live without life-filled oceans, home to the tiny organisms that generate half the planet’s oxygen while comprising the base of the global food chain (contrary to the common belief that Wal-Mart forms the base of the food chain). So much for the wisdom of the self-proclaimed wise ape.

AT: Afforestation

Afforestation reduces reflectiveness increasing temperatures and has too small effect on carbon

Morgan Clendaniel, editor of co-exist, the deputy editor of GOOD, 4-7-2014, “5 Insane Geoengineering Ideas That Won't Save The Planet--Just Make Things Worse,” Fast Coexist, http://www.fastcoexist.com/3027399/5-insane-geo-engineering-ideas-that-wont-save-the-planet-just-make-things-worse, Accessed 4-8-2014.

The technical term for planting lots of trees to combat climate change is "afforestation." But whatever you call it, it doesn't seem to be very feasible as a large-scale measure. The research tested the idea of seeding vegetation all over the Sahara desert, in North Africa, and the Australian Outback, and the effect was minimal. "Even if you could plant trees in this whole area, they will take carbon up, but they won't take enough to have a large impact on temperature," Keller says. The trees would absorb some carbon, but also reduce the reflectiveness of the surface (the albedo effect) keeping more heat at land level.

AT: Iron Fertilization

Natural experiments prove iron fertilization fails

Becky Oskin, climate expert, 3-21-2014, “Iron Fertilization Might Be Ineffective Against Global Warming, Fossil Study Shows,” Hufington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/iron-fertilization-global-warming-fossils_n_5006300.html, Accessed 4-12-2014

During Earth's last ice age, iron dust dumped into the ocean fertilized the garden of the sea, feeding a plankton bloom that soaked up carbon dioxide from the air, a new study confirms.¶ But the results deal a blow to some geoengineering schemes that claim that people may be able use iron fertilization to slow global warming. The planet's natural experiment shows it would take at least a thousand years to lower carbon dioxide levels by 40 parts per million — the amount of the drop during the ice age.¶ Meanwhile, carbon dioxide is now increasing by 2 parts per million yearly, so in about 20 years human emissions could add another 40 parts per million of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Levels currently hover around 400 parts per million.¶ "Even if we could reproduce what works in the natural world, it's not going to solve the carbon dioxide problem," said Alfredo Martínez-García, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland and author of the study, published today (March 20) in the journal Science.

Iron fertilization fails

Morgan Clendaniel, editor of co-exist, the deputy editor of GOOD, 4-7-2014, “5 Insane Geoengineering Ideas That Won't Save The Planet--Just Make Things Worse,” Fast Coexist, http://www.fastcoexist.com/3027399/5-insane-geo-engineering-ideas-that-wont-save-the-planet-just-make-things-worse, Accessed 4-8-2014.

Another idea to stimulate plankton growth is to fertilize an ocean that's limited in iron. The researchers focused on a scenario in the Southern Ocean, but found, while it could be logistically feasible, it wouldn't do much for CO2 absorption. "Even if we fertilize the ocean completely, which is probably possible with a big effort, we just can't get enough plankton growth because it's cold and dark most of the year, and you don't get much carbon take-up that way," Keller says.

Solar Radiation Management

Causes ocean acidification

Long Cao, Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, and Ken Caldeira, Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, March 2010, “Can ocean iron fertilization mitigate ocean acidification?” Carnegie Institution, http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Cao_Caldeira2.html, Accessed 4-8-2014.

Ocean iron fertilization has been proposed as a method to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, and there is continued commercial interest in using iron fertilization to generate carbon credits. It has been further speculated that ocean iron fertilization could help mitigate ocean acidification. Here, using a global ocean carbon cycle model, we performed idealized ocean iron fertilization simulations to place an upper bound on the effect of iron fertilization on atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification. Under the IPCC A2 CO2 emission scenario, at year 2100 the model simulates an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 965 ppm with the mean surface ocean pH 0.44 units less than its pre-industrial value of 8.18. A globally sustained ocean iron fertilization could not diminish CO2 concentrations below 833 ppm or reduce the mean surface ocean pH change to less than 0.38 units. This maximum of 0.06 unit mitigation in surface pH change by the end of this century is achieved at the cost of storing more anthropogenic CO2 in the ocean interior, furthering acidifying the deep ocean. If the amount of net carbon storage in the deep ocean by iron fertilization produces an equivalent amount of emission credits, ocean iron fertilization further acidifies the deep ocean without conferring any chemical benefit to the surface ocean.

AT: Aerosols

Aerosols fail

Morgan Clendaniel, editor of co-exist, the deputy editor of GOOD, 4-7-2014, “5 Insane Geoengineering Ideas That Won't Save The Planet--Just Make Things Worse,” Fast Coexist, http://www.fastcoexist.com/3027399/5-insane-geo-engineering-ideas-that-wont-save-the-planet-just-make-things-worse, Accessed 4-8-2014.

Solar radiation management (SRM), where you use mirrors or sulphur aerosols to block sunlight, is widely seen as the most feasible method among geo-engineers. Helping its cause is that we know aerosols work: when there's a big volcanic eruption, and tons of ash go into the atmosphere, temperatures tend to drop. The problem, says Keller, is that it's only a "Band-Aid." If you have to stop spraying sulphur, the problem would return. "You get really rapid warming because the CO2 is still there," he says. Moreover, SRM could also significantly affect rainfall patterns, perhaps "as much as climate change itself."