iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Global Warming Plan Involves Cooling Air

SETH BORENSTEIN   04/ 8/09 10:29 PM ET   AP

Obama Science

WASHINGTON — Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming _ a radical idea once dismissed out of hand _ is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's new science adviser said Wednesday.

That's because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month.

The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.

Using such an experimental measure is only being thought of as a last resort, Holdren said.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."

His concern is that the United States and other nations won't slow global warming fast enough and that several "tipping points" could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

He and many experts believe that warming of a few degrees more would lead to disastrous drought conditions and food shortages in some regions, rising seas and more powerful coastal storms in others.

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

"We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge."

Holdren said discussions include Cabinet officials and heads of sub-Cabinet level agencies, such as NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The 65-year-old physicist is far from alone in taking geoengineering seriously. The National Academy of Sciences is making it the subject of the first workshop in its new climate challenges program for policymakers, scientists and the public. The British Parliament has also discussed the idea. At an international meeting of climate scientists last month in Copenhagen, 15 talks dealt with different aspects of geoengineering.

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

Holdren, a 1981 winner of a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant, outlined these possible geoengineering options:

_ Shooting sulfur particles (like those produced by power plants and volcanoes, for example) into the upper atmosphere, an idea that gained steam when it was proposed by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2006. It would be "basically mimicking the effect of volcanoes in screening out the incoming sunlight," Holdren said.

_ Creating artificial "trees" _ giant towers that suck carbon dioxide out of the air and store it.

The first approach would "try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," Holdren said.

But he said there could be grave side effects. Studies suggest that might include eating away a large chunk of the ozone layer above the poles and causing the Mediterranean and the Mideast to be much drier.

And those are just the predicted problems. Scientists say they worry about side effects that they don't anticipate.

While the idea could strike some people as too risky, the Obama administration could get unusual support on the idea from groups that have often denied the harm of global warming in the past.

The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has its own geoengineering project, saying it could be "feasible and cost-effective." And Cato Institute scholar Jerry Taylor said Wednesday: "Very few people would rule out geoengineering on its face."

Holdren didn't spell out under what circumstances such extreme measures might ever be called for. And he emphasized they are not something to rely on.

"It would be preferable by far," he said, "to solve this problem by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases."

Yet there is already significant opposition building to the House Democratic leaders' bill aimed at achieving President Barack Obama's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

Holdren said temperatures should be kept from rising more than 3.6 degrees. To get there, he said the U.S. and other industrial nations have to begin permanent dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide pollution by 2015, with developing countries following suit within a decade.

Those efforts are racing against three tipping points he cited: Earth could be as close as six years away from the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, he said, and that has the potential of altering the climate in unforeseen ways. Other elements that could dramatically speed up climate change include the release of frozen methane from thawing permafrost in Siberia, and more and bigger wildfires worldwide.

The trouble is that no one knows when these things are coming, he said.

Holdren also addressed other topics during the interview:

_ The U.S. anti-ballistic missile program is not ready to work and shouldn't be used unless it is 100 percent effective. The system, which would be used to shoot down missiles from countries like North Korea or Iran "needs to be essentially perfect ... that's going to be hard to achieve."

_ Holdren said NASA needs some changes. He said the Bush administration's plan to return astronauts to the moon was underfunded so money was taken from science and aeronautics. Those areas, including climate change research, were "decimated," he said.

The administration will "rebalance NASA's programs so that we have in space exploration, a suitable mix of manned activities and robotic activities," Holdren said. Doing that "will only get under way in earnest when a new administrator is in place."

Holdren, who advises the president on such decisions, said he hopes Obama will pick a new NASA boss soon.

___

On the Net:

Office of Science and Technology Policy: http://www.ostp.gov/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming _ a radical idea once dismissed out of hand _ is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, t...
WASHINGTON — Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming _ a radical idea once dismissed out of hand _ is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, t...
Filed by Katharine Zaleski  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,516
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (32 total)
03:19 PM on 04/12/2009
Dear the rest of the world,

Due to growing concerns with managment, I am considering resigning my position of US Consumer. Myself and my spouse are fairly well educated, and possess skills that will translate positively into your economies and communities. Myself, spouse, and children are well mannered and healthy. Although we do no speak a second language, we are more than willing to learn, as well as be open to your local cultures and customs.

Please do not respond if your country is currently at war or experiencing civil unrest that threatens to escalate into war. My family and I have the strong belief that cooperation can produce better results than violent confrontation.

Resume available upon request.
03:13 PM on 04/12/2009
We need to switch to solar and wind to end wars for oil, coal pollution and environmental damage anyway.
03:52 PM on 04/12/2009
You said it, so it must be true.
04:00 PM on 04/12/2009
And you mocked it, so it isn't?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor
02:06 AM on 04/12/2009
Perhaps someone could help here: please list the three most drastic changes you have personally seen that you believe are caused by global warming.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
05:14 PM on 04/13/2009
I have an idea- instead of asking to be spoonfed data and then denying it, as most conservatives do, why don't you look it up for yourself and get back to us. There is tons of information out there! Even so, my inclination is that you will say you can not find any.

It kills me the way you guys ask to be spoonfed data and then just deny it. It is like walking into a restaurant and asking to try all the food then saying you didn'y like any of it and leaving. It is very arrogant!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor
07:52 PM on 04/13/2009
for the last time, realpolitic: I am not a conservative. I am probably farther to the left politically than you are. It bothers me when you or anyone else lumps me in with a political affiliation like that. Actually, it makes me angry.

I am not asking for online documentation. I am asking you to tell me things you have personally experienced that you attribute to climate change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor
12:26 AM on 04/12/2009
Mr. Holdren says that climate change is "happening so rapidly." What is he referring to? The melting of the Arctic, where the ice is expanding? There is more young ice now, but that's because the ice extent is growing back towards 1979 extents. Ice needs to become 2 years old before it can become older--we agree?

The Greenland glaciers? Seemingly they are not melting as fast as predicted, so presumably not those either. Antarctica? No, plenty of cold and ice in Antarctica.

Global temperatures then? We are 0.4 degrees Celsius above annual temperatures from the late 1800s--so not that either. (Speak up if any of this is wrong or misleading.)

Mr. Holdren wants to seed the upper atmosphere with "pollution particles." His chosen medicine for the planet's fever appears to be sulphur. Does anybody remember acid rain, which destroyed forests and lakes all over the U.S. and Canada? It was caused by atmospheric sulphur releases. Now it sounds like a good idea because Mr. Holdren wants it? It is getting a little alarming to listen to this genius and his doomsday talk. Not because anyone can believe him, but because he has power.

Mr. Holdren needs to be removed from his position. If he wants to play with doomsday scenarios that's fine, but that activity cannot be combined with representing the Adminsitration. His statements could frighten children and the gullible.

Get rid of him before he does real damage.
01:32 AM on 04/12/2009
"We don't have the luxury..."

Right, hurry before more people find out its a comlete scam, Mr. Holdren! Spread that fear! Worked for the Patriot Act!
06:06 PM on 04/11/2009
When all else fails, resort to religion.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
02:24 PM on 04/11/2009
Dr. Josh Willis, a climate scientist and ocean expert at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, recently said this:


It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come.

It is important to remember that climate science is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers. What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other’s work.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/?pagemode=print

Denialists, please send your responses th Dr. Willis. I am just the messenger!
02:33 PM on 04/11/2009
The pope said it, it must be true.

In other words, the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. No evidence is presented, merely the word of an "expert".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
02:41 PM on 04/11/2009
What is not true?
photo
Dredd
Our government is a wartocracy.
01:50 PM on 04/11/2009
Sorry, I can't buy into that one. It is too much like wrestling hurricanes.

We have to grasp the size of things to realize our carbon behaviour is what it is about:

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/drama-of-andromeda.html

Renewable energy of the green kind, not green alligator wrestling.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DocSyracuse
A socially liberal, fiscally conservative surgeon
09:05 AM on 04/11/2009
Still waiting for an open debate on AGW. It could be really interesting, and seeing both sides of the issue brought to light would be pretty informative. If one side clearly has a compelling case, so much the better.

But we won't see a debate because those who question AGW are called 'flat-earthers', etc. Gore himself refuses to debate AGW as it is 'settled science'.

Hogwash. Any real scientist knows that all we can do is propose theories, and they are always subject to change in light of new evidence. The anti-intellectual attitude of some AGW supporters truly undermines their credibility. Why not have a public forum and debate with the 100's of scientists who are unconvinced, based on their own studies, that humans can influence global climate? If their arguments don't hold up, so be it.

It wasn't too long ago that some scientists were predicting a new ice age.

Let's have the dialogue, Mr. Gore. Your reluctance to do so is suspect at best and intellectually dishonest and cowardly at worst.
12:57 PM on 04/11/2009
I guess in the last 30 years, science has had a fundamental change.

No longer are results wrong, they are merely "more or less than expected". No longer is an argument based on facts compelleling evidence, merely an argument based on fear. No longer is the science the focus, merely the person who talks about the science.

Science has, in short, turned into a popularity contest.

Fundamental systems that used to be the cornerstones of our understanding of the planet are completely thrown out the window in this "debate". The carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, plate tectonics, volcanism, impact events, solar cycles, ocean currents, winds... the list goes on.

And the most fundamental system of all... life itself. There is the sadly misguided view that life on this planet is fragile and wholly dependent upon the delicate balance of the atmosphere.

Utter nonsense. Life *makes* the atmosphere. Life *exploits* these systems by its very existance. Life is voracious and we are part of that life.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
01:47 PM on 04/11/2009
Stanly, your crazy arguments that scientists are just making arguments based on fear is the wildest straw man among the uneducated. Scientists point out what will happen, but that does not mean it will not happen if they do not point it out. If a weathr forecaster said a hirricane was coming your way that does not make him responsible for the hurricane. It does not mean it will not happen if you didn't hear him.

How do you know about the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, plate tectonics, volcanism, impact events, solar cycles, ocean currents, winds. Tons of scientific literature has been written on these subjects. It is not like you are telling something to scientists they don't know. Why don't you read some of the studies and get back to us? Then your statements may have some relevancy!
01:11 PM on 04/11/2009
1- green house gasses trap heat in the atmosphere
2- co2 is a greenhouse gas
3- we are increasing the amount of co2 in the atmosphere
4- the global temperatures is rising

That part is settled, it is reproducible, a high majority of the scientific (worldwide) community supports all the above statements. A very, very small group of scientist do not sign on to all of those as facts.

Public forum and debate, now that is scientific. Look, there are thousands of scientists around the world. They write papers that get published in scientific journals. This is where the debate takes place. This is where the debate has been settled.

If you like we can discuss/debate the amount of temperature rise that this increased CO2 is causing.

However, if you still believe any of the following you cannot be convinced by any amount of evidence, and what are we supposed to do? There are still flat earthers out there who believe the earth is flat (well atleast there were until the 1980's or something).

1- 1930 was the hottest year globally
2- we are in a cooling period
3- all this science is just because researchers want their grant money
4- we cannot effect our climate

All those statements are the result of misinformation.

If you believe we are heading in the wrong direction, talk to your scientists who don't support it and have them start writing peer reviewed papers and have them published.

The debate has happened.
01:22 PM on 04/11/2009
You forget to put things in perspective. You also forget to eliminate all other possibilities before making a claim.

1. CO2 is necessary for life (well, most life).
2. CO2 increases (or decreases) without our contribution.
3. The global temperature is far colder than what could be considered "normal". Warm, tropical temperatures are far more "normal" in the history of the planet.
4. There are short warming peroids interlaced between cooling periods in ice ages.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ssfahrer
01:21 AM on 04/11/2009
Doesn't he realize that you can only get HOT AIR out of Washington DC?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor
09:21 PM on 04/10/2009
Let me assure that I am a staunch liberal and conservationist. Now on to the issue:

The sheer operatic madness of Mr. Holdren's comments is a taint on the seriousness of the Obama Administration. It is hard to imagine how you could sound more like a scientist unhinged even if you tried.

What is it exactly about climate change that makes Mr. Holdren say that it is happening "so rapidly" in the first place? He is in a responsible position, and cannot afford to spew such disinformation, when there is nothing about climate change that is particularly unequivocal.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Ranta
I don't need no ****** badges.
11:56 PM on 04/10/2009
The polar ice caps are melting. All the glaciers are melting. Alaska is 4 degrees warmer than it was 40 years ago. What do you want? New York to be under water before you admit that science may be onto something?
12:36 AM on 04/11/2009
Yes and from your little window of human's tiny observational perspective of about a few thousand years into the climate in Earth's 4 billion year history obviously means these events are unprecedented and should never occur in a normal planet...

Oh wait, wtheck is a "normal" planet anyways? Is Uranus "abnormal" for having its rings vertically oriented unlike Jupiter and Saturn? Should Earth be at a stable 98.6 degrees lest it develop a fever?

LOL the general common sense of these folks is lacking... and they make up for it with fancy documentation and "studies" that amount to self-worshipping and self-propagating junkscience.
01:28 PM on 04/11/2009
Science has been "on to something" for some time now. In fact, we've got a pretty good record of "something" for about a billion years.

However, the "why" of that "something" is still, to this day, not fully understood.
12:16 AM on 04/11/2009
Talk about spewing. Who elected you the judge of what or what isn't happening suddenly.
06:12 PM on 04/11/2009
Logical fallacy of ad hominem. You are attacking the person, and not the argument.
08:45 PM on 04/10/2009
What is this guy smoking, I guess everybody needs attention.. I thought it was climate change since it has been cooling from 1998.. watch Al Gore movie now and you see how dated it is, there no truth to it,,
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DocSyracuse
A socially liberal, fiscally conservative surgeon
08:50 AM on 04/11/2009
Don't try to confuse the issue with facts.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
08:33 PM on 04/10/2009
If each of us just turn our air conditioners on HIGH and open all our windows....
07:34 PM on 04/10/2009
The hubris of the scientific community astounds me... Now I'm a student at UC Berkeley, about as liberal an education as you can get... but this is just ridiculous...

I think I know what's really going on... These prophets (I don't like to call them scientists) are actually ageless men (kind of like Highlander) who have seen the ebb and flow of Earth's climate since its conception... These prophets know the temperature the Earth is SUPPOSED to be because they are in tune with its desires... They actually have developed a computer that can ask the Earth questions such as... Are you hot? Want me to turn the A/C/ on?

Puh-leeze... anyone who tells me Earth is supposed to maintain some kind of homeostatic temperature throughout its lifetime can tell me also that the rings on Uranus are supposed to be oriented horizontally like Saturn...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justmeinAz
01:01 AM on 04/11/2009
Congrats on being one of the hundreds of thousands of people to go through that school. Now just earn your very own MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant and we'll all consider your opinion to be as valid as his. You have an opinion from what? reading news online and maybe a National Geographic? This guy has done primary research in this field, and you should not presume that your armchair opinion is as valid as his actual information on the subject.
04:03 PM on 04/11/2009
Again, you commit the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. No evidence is presented beyond the word of an "expert".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimspy
Quod quae operibus sufficit.
02:08 AM on 04/11/2009
You've succeeded in re-framing the discussion to the point where it bears no resemblance to whats being stated.

No one is telling anyone that the Earth is supposed to maintain a certain temperature. Everyone knows the Earth goes through cycles. The problem is that WE DON'T ADAPT WELL to those cycles - natural OR manmade. We build our cities along oceans that will someday inundate them. We grow crops according to weather patterns that won't exist in half a millenium - either by way of ice Age (normal cycle) or global warming (man-made). We have grudgingly adapted in the past to things like Ice Ages, but only because they came on comparatively slowly. Global warming is coming on very quickly compared to other cycles, and we're going to have to do a real tap-dance to adapt.

Laugh if you will at geo-engineering, but its the first glimmer of actual hope that I've seen for solving this problem. We are never going to cap greenhouse gas emissions in time to avoid the tipping points. And you can take that to the bank.
01:32 PM on 04/11/2009
Who says we don't adapt well? The only areas on the planet that are relatively devoid of human life are those with extreme cold climates. The areas of the earth that are relatively warm and tropical are teeming with human life.

Cold is bad. Warm is good. If you think otherwise, feel free to go to Antarctica and set up a homestead.
04:25 PM on 04/10/2009
Great, another reason for liberals to raise taxes! Bravo!
04:27 PM on 04/10/2009
And yet another opportunity for you to pull your head out of the sand.
04:53 PM on 04/10/2009
What would make you think that I'm being inattentive?
11:13 PM on 04/09/2009
Now we're all gonna die. I thought this issue was crucial to our survival, this had to be done to save the planet. I thought Obama was a fighter, a man of principle. How sad for the planet that New York will now be swamped by the sea, the polar bears are goners.

Doesn't he care at all? How can he toss in the towel so easily? What other key issues will he cave on? Health care? Security? The war on contingency?
01:12 PM on 04/10/2009
If you are so sure that we are all going to die, may as well not waste any more time living, right?

Get busy living or get busy dying...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
02:26 AM on 04/11/2009
Hey, I saw that movie. You got to "get busy living or get busy dying..." I don't know how it relates to climate change science though.