Background : *For addressing climate change, the most talked about solution in the main stream media is that of reducing CO2 emissions (cut down coal plants, reduce oil, etc.). Rarely, do I hear other solutions of solar geoengineering like Light-Reflecting Particles in the Stratosphereor Aerosols in the Stratosphere.
While there is no denying that cutting back on CO2 emissions maybe the best solution, but so far it has proven to be non economical. With that in mind, Solar Geoengineering maybe an economical route of combating this problem (at least as a backup strategy).
*
So the question really is :
What is the ratio of research funding on Climate change and CO2 reduction versus Solar Geoengineering for the US and Europe respectively ?
Well, I do think though that the question should be why is that the media does forget to point out that there has been research done on that front too, the point is that when I see a lot of questing like this the impression I get is that there are a lot of interested parties that do not want many to be aware of what was researched before because what it tells us is that the thing that makes more economical sense is to deal with the issue now rather than later.
What are the assumptions and background and scientific evidence for the claim that emissions reductions are “non economical”?
Secondary question: Have you read the IPCC WG2 and WG3 reports?
Tertiary question: Does your assessment of the apparent “costs” of emissions reductions include the comparative costs of the consequences of not doing anything?
Read your link - there is no research or analysis mentioned of particulates or aerosols in the stratosphere. Am I missing something ?
Wolfpup - You are a long time member. I thought the etiquette in GQ was to answer the Original Question before asking other questions. I maybe wrong in the background or my assumptions - and I will be happy to answer your questions in a separate thread.
For this thread - can we please answer the question in my original post ? How much research money is spent on Climate change solutions based on CO2 reduction versus non-CO2 reduction ?
Your question is essentially like asking "How much research money is spent on climate change solutions based on CO2 reduction versus on magic which allows us to continue emissions at present levels and compensate with said magic?
The reason I referenced WG2 and especially WG3 is that it’s clear from the comprehensive analysis of all available data that this sort of wishful thinking is not in the cards. The schemes for global-scale sequestration or geoengineering are essentially in the “crackpot” category of wishful thinking. There are no serious hypotheses to even start with.
The basic principle missed is that cloud brightening is one of the ideas proposed that does deal with aerosols released in the atmosphere.
Of course you think that by doing this in the stratosphere (like if we release sulfur in it) will avoid the ocean acidification mentioned already? Nope.
Well, I can only infer: in general, climate research money also goes to researchers that do take a look at geo engineering solutions. For sure the ones that want to concentrate on studies like this are not funded like in other areas (disturbingly though, a lot seems to come from organizations that also continue to deny that there is a problem). Still, like in the 5 or so papers already mentioned, there is research going on, enough though to point out that the proponents of Geo engineering should also deal with the other evil problem twin of global warming: ocean acidification. In the latest report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program it was recommended to fund more research on this matter, but the caveat remains:
Did we ever successfully eliminate the effect of pollution by allowing the pollution to continue, and doing something to mitigate some of the effect of pollution?
From WG3full report, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) -
Page 61. “Knowledge about the possible beneficial or harmful effects of
SRM is highly preliminary”
Page 158. “SRM may help avert potentially catastrophic temperature
increases, but may have other negative impacts with respect to global
and regional climatic conditions (Rasch etal., 2008). Research could
reduce the uncertainties as to these other consequences …”
Page 219 - “Three lines of argument support the view that geoengineering technologies might be desirable to deploy at some point in the future. First,
that humanity could end up in a situation where deploying geoengineering,
particularly SRM, appears as a lesser evil than unmitigated climate change …”
I do not come to the same conclusion from reading the report above.
GIGObuster, agree with the caveats. There is no denying that cutting down CO2 should be the first approach - but solar geoengineering seems like a backup plan deserving investments. I am trying to find out how much funding is going into it.
I think the point you are missing is that the IPCC is telling us that Geo engineering might be desirable but it is mentioned there mostly as a last resort tool, the emphasis of the IPCC is to control our emissions. What they are really saying is that Geo engineering is a thing to be considered only if we all fail to do the most logical and economical thing.
Of course I have pointed at that before, but to make the point that fossil fuel producers will then have more incentives to find ways to capture a lot of the CO2.
From many on the contrarian side we got a lot of talking points about how harmful regulations will be to jobs or to our economy/civilization; really, a lot of doom predictions were made before sulfur and NOx control and removal were imposed with regulations.
IMHO it is really mostly thanks to greed the reason why they are opposed to find economical ways to capture CO2 before dumping it into the atmosphere.
Already replied to, but it seems that the answer is not good enough for you. As pointed, not much money specifically, but that is complicated by the fact that a lot of the research that was done already does allow others to find ways to mitigate the warming like finding the idea to use sulfur in the stratosphere.
That can be proposed because in the first place a lot of research into how particles from volcanoes do affect the climate was already done and that is used by the proponents of Geo engineering; unfortunately, as pointed before already, the proponents of geo engineering need better ideas and to at least show with modeling how they could be on the right track.
(I mentioned the future use of coolants like SO[sub]2[/sub] in a recent thread and apologize if this led to confusion. I was not recommending such, just pointing out that, rightly or wrongly, mankind will adopt such mitigations. It is misleading to ignore this when discussing future temperature and sea level rises.)