# Climate change - levels of research funding on potential solutions ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 2, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175 "2017-03-02T03:25:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/1 "2017-03-02T03:25:28Z")
**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 Stratosphere](http://www.sciencealert.com/new-light-reflecting-particles-in-the-stratosphere-could-cool-earth-and-fix-the-ozone-layer)or [Aerosols in the Stratosphere.](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/) 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 ? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/2 "2017-03-02T03:40:35Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > **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 Stratosphere](http://www.sciencealert.com/new-light-reflecting-particles-in-the-stratosphere-could-cool-earth-and-fix-the-ozone-layer)or [Aerosols in the Stratosphere.](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/) > > 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. > **[Geoengineering is no substitute for cutting emissions, new studies show -...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-is-no-substitute-for-cutting-emissions-new-studies-show/)** > > Attempts to limit climate change by removing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere would not... > [@](#): > > “MCB doesn’t undo climate change but instead mitigates some of the effects; in a medical metaphor, it treats the symptoms not the illness.” > > And if climate change is more severe than the mild scenario they tested, geoengineering efforts would be less effective in preventing crop failures, Parkes adds: > > “If [the increase in emissions] were to continue, they would eventually have a greater warming effect than the cooling effect from the geoengineering. This is why all solar radiation management schemes are a temporary solution while a transfer to a lower emission economy takes place.” > > This is a conclusion shared by Dr Richard Matear and Dr Andrew Lenton from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia. Writing in an accompanying News & Views article to the CDR paper, they say that cutting emissions now is a much safer option than relying on geoengineering: > > “[The research] demonstrates that proposed technological solutions, like CDR, to the problems of global warming and ocean acidification are no substitute for reducing carbon emissions, which remains the safest and most reliable path for avoiding dangerous climate change.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/3 "2017-03-02T03:46:59Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/4 "2017-03-02T04:00:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show - Carbon Brief](https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-is-no-substitute-for-cutting-emissions-new-studies-show) 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 ? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/5 "2017-03-02T05:06:54Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/6 "2017-03-02T05:11:00Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > Read your link - there is no research or analysis mentioned of particulates or aerosols in the stratosphere. Am I missing something ? The basic principle missed is that cloud brightening is one of the ideas proposed that does deal with aerosols released in the atmosphere. > **[Marine cloud brightening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening)** > > Marine cloud brightening also known as marine cloud seeding and marine cloud engineering is a proposed solar radiation management climate engineering technique that would make clouds brighter, reflecting a small fraction of incoming sunlight back into space in order to offset anthropogenic global warming. Along with stratospheric aerosol injection, it is one of the two solar radiation management methods that may most feasibly have a substantial climate impact. The intention is that increasing Ma... > [@](#): > > Most clouds are quite reflective, bouncing incoming solar radiation back into space. Increasing clouds’ albedo would increase the portion of incoming solar radiation that is reflected, in turn cooling the planet. Clouds consist of water droplets, and clouds with smaller droplets are more reflective (because of the Twomey effect). Cloud condensation nuclei are necessary for water droplet formation. The central idea underlying marine cloud brightening is to add aerosols to atmospheric locations where clouds form. These would then act as cloud condensation nuclei, increasing the cloud albedo. 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. > **[Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with...](https://skepticalscience.com/Three-studies-illustrate-significant-risks-complications-geoengineering-climate.html)** > > Guest post by Brian Angliss In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences defined 'geoengineering' as the 'large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.' The most significant... > [@](#): > > Combined, these three studies paint a bleak picture of geoengineering that runs counter to some proponents’ claims. Pumping SO2 into the stratosphere can generally delay or counteract the increase in average global surface temperature, but at the cost potentially serious changes in precipitation and the accompanying changes in various regions’ ability to sustain ecosystems and civilization. There will be other unintended and unexpected consequences from using SO2 to geoengineer the climate, and given the inability of international bodies to presently manage conflicts over climate disruption, it’s unlikely that those same bodies will be able to manage the regional problems that will occur as a result of geoengineering. While more research into better models, the effects of SO2 pumping on sea ice and monsoons, and more effort on standardization of models and tests are all warranted, there are some issues that no amount of geoengineering with SO2 can impact, such as the fact that only reducing CO2 concentrations can do anything for ocean acidification. And while removing CO2 out of the atmosphere directly may well become a viable means to geoengineer the Earth’s climate and slow or reverse the increase in global mean surface temperature, the total amount of CO2 that needs to be removed is more than the entire amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere in any one year. And no CO2 removal technology will be effective unless humanity also stops emitting CO2 by burning fossil fuels. > > Climate disruption is a hole, and before we consider how best to use geoengineering to build us a ladder out of the hole, we have to stop digging ourselves even deeper. > [@am77494](#): > > 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 ? 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: > **[Geoengineering Gets Green Light from Federal Scientists](https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/11/154624/geoengineering-gets-green-light-from-federal-scientists/)** > > For the first time, funding from the U.S. government may be spent on man-made approaches to ease climate change. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, Science raises the concern that a decision to push on with geoengineering approaches could provide the incoming Trump administration with an excuse to avoid cutting emissions. If we can suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and reflect sunlight, the theory goes, why would we need to stop burning fossil fuels? > > **The new report is pretty clear on that issue. “Climate intervention cannot substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the changes in climate that occur,” it says, but “some types of deliberative climate intervention may someday be one of a portfolio of tools used in managing climate change.”** ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/7 "2017-03-02T05:12:31Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/8 "2017-03-02T05:39:53Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. Where does it say that ? From [WG3](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf)full 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 …” > [@wolfpup](#): > > The schemes for global-scale sequestration or geoengineering are essentially in the “crackpot” category of wishful thinking I do not come to the same conclusion from reading the report above. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/9 "2017-03-02T05:45:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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: 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/10 "2017-03-02T05:47:15Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > 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. 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, this failure may be happening. > **[Consensus and geoengineering - how to convince people about global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/consensus-geoengineering-how-to-convince-people-about-global-warming.html)** > > Everyone agrees that global warming has become a polarized issue. Liberals tend to view themselves as being on Team Human-Caused Global Warming is a Problem, and conservatives tend to view themselves on Team No It’s Not. Convincing people to change... > [@](#): > > Use the Brakes, not the Airbags > > If the Earth’s climate were a car, right now we’re already driving dangerously fast and accelerating. Carbon pollution cuts would be the brakes, and geoengineering would be the airbags. Kahan’s experiment tells people that we don’t need to use the brakes because the airbags will protect us, and we can have fun going fast in the meantime. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/11 "2017-03-02T05:49:16Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > 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? Sure - for coal, there was/is post combustion sulfur removal. For gasoline - there is the post combustion catalytic converter to remove NOx. For Oil spills, technology development to reduce oil spills and technology development to mitigate oil spills go hand in hand. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/12 "2017-03-02T05:57:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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 I am fully getting the point. All I am asking is what fraction of the research money is going towards the “last resort tool” development ? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/13 "2017-03-02T06:01:37Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > Sure - for coal, there was/is post combustion sulfur removal. For gasoline - there is the post combustion catalytic converter to remove NOx. > > For Oil spills, technology development to reduce oil spills and technology development to mitigate oil spills go hand in hand. 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/14 "2017-03-02T06:12:09Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > I am fully getting the point. All I am asking is what fraction of the research money is going towards the “last resort tool” development ? 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. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-levels-of-research-funding-on-potential-solutions/781175/15 "2017-03-02T07:19:15Z")
(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.)