Plotting Emission Austerity against Geoengineering Innovation
Which is easier for response to climate change in some years from now, a global harmonized emission austerity or a geoengineering experiment? This question is coming from undulating approach to curb Greenhouse (GHG) emissions as an effort to prevent fractional rise in average temperature of the earth.
Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) is a proposal the UN is presenting to nations to ratify for a coordinated response to curb GHG emissions. The deal should be the focus as applicable to nations to cut and cap emissions. The usual late-year climate change meeting organized by the UN is aimed at coordinating nations to ratify this proposal.
Arguments and (say) deceit in the face of present reality is making this deal more and more unlikely. Some top polluting nations point fingers against others and some also say top polluting nations should pay for their emission. Climate change is closely becoming a source of attack than an issue for solution.
Geoengineering (or climate engineering) should not even be an option for global warming response because curbing emissions should be enough; these attacks and unwillingness for other focus is making it look like the least option, geoengineering will be the first.
The United States is a top polluting nation, both total and per capita, everyone knows this. China and India are also top polluting nations but usually prefer to class themselves as developing economies for climate change rather than emerging economies that they really are.
The EU, Russia, South Africa, Australia and more also list among the top polluters presenting a mix list of developing and developed economies in this class. Some advocate that stringent emission curbs deal should be legally binding for developed nations than for developing nations because of their economic status and infrastructural development.
This is surely not possible because no Nation is a “kid” (in comparison to human life). Every nation on earth today has a level of development and has intellectuals to work things out even now that global economic outlook is gloomy. Every nation needs to understand her capacity and act from that end. Developed economies that are top polluters should focus more on emission mitigation since their infrastructure can help to a good extent with adaptation.
Developing economies that are small polluters should focus more on adaptation because of extreme weather events and plan for mitigation in future. Developed nations in between should pursue both closely to save their people and the world. This probably is a direction that should be advised till about 2016 before reports are noted & a deal in similar shape is pursued.
Going on with the usual push-around-blame may land feared effects of climate change on the world; the 42-nation Association of Small Island Countries (AOSIS) and Africa usually say that they will be the most affected in event of climate change effects. The answer here is so simple, pursue if you can adaptation methods with your national budget or climate finance from the World Bank or anywhere else than push for a deal or technology transfer that may really never come.
The so-called big polluters pointed to for draw backs on climate change fight are making some efforts even though their existing economic problems may never let it go full scale. The US for example, invests in diverse green projects across the country and her technology transfer offices in some colleges collaborate with nations and institutions worldwide.
The EU is looking at carbon tax and also developing a road map for a global deal in 2015. Australia also introduced pollution tax and China is the world biggest producer of renewables; all as moves towards emission austerity. These moves are certainly not enough but may still be gradual because of economic issues of late.
Understanding that the US is trying to recover and may not be able to sharply cut emissions nationally because of how it will affect business is necessary and that China pointing to US for seriousness may not also be able to cut emissions sharply because of how emissions are part of the ‘trade business’ of China and conditions in rural China.
Understanding everyone’s current peculiarity and approaching it from that end is what the climate change convention may never have time for thereby protracting and portending a negative outlook for harmonized emission austerity.
Geoengineering is an unwanted option in these meetings and the alarm by get-a-deal people for geoengineering is usually high. We can hardly part with geoengineering for now because everyone is trying to be off reality and the geoengineering option is not like the stress-to-achieve and headache-to-maintain climate change deal.
Geoengineering is feared because of its consequences even when we know that the experiment cannot be carried out without close carefulness within a certain range. The most worry for geoengineering is that its worst enemies do not come from the academia.
Geoengineering will not kill us, it will not damage the planet farther and it will not also upset balance in the planet because it is aimed at filling the losses measurements show are responsible for global warming. Geoengineering may not come so soon, so there is time to study more and conclude farther.
Arctic and Antarctica are good locations to test geoengineering experiments because of the absence of permanent human inhabitants and the contribution of the atmosphere over those regions to the general earth climate. Filling ozone layer or cloud seeding test over that place can come at a certain fraction and checked to practically notice their correction and effect to the system.
The United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its Annual Energy Outlook with projections to 2035 recently; it was stated in the report that fossil fuels will continue to supply up to 80% of the World’s Energy use by 2035 and carbon emissions may rise by about 50% at that time. The report looks at various backgrounds and measurements for this projection giving an idea of what is likely. Given this and harm emission holds for the earth climate system, we may just find some safety in geoengineering.
Tags: Geoengineering , Global Warming , Climate Change , Ozone Layer , Emission Austerity ,
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.