Global temperature has been increasing at a rate unseen in the planet’s history, and scientists have blamed carbon emission as the main culprit. At the rate the climate is changing, just reducing carbon emission alone is insufficient in mitigating climate change. Hence, a controversial theory of injecting sulphur particles into the stratosphere was introduced in a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emission. However as such method is untested and might even reduce the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or United Nations (UN) should focus on more pressing issues; such as reducing carbon emission, and not focus primarily on a temporary solution such as injecting sulphur particles.
Proponents of sulphur particles injection or more commonly known as solar-radiation management (SRM) argue that due to the high level of uncertainty, even cutting emissions by great magnitude cannot ensure that the climate will resume its normality. Whereas the effectiveness of SRM can be prove in the case of Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991, which cooled the globe by about 0.5 degree Celsius in less than a year by injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere (Keith, Morgan, Parson, 2010). Moreover, sulphur particles are cheap and the cost of operations will only cost up to just billions of dollars per year and will not involve global scale politics (Keith, Morgan, Parson, 2010).
The blockage of sunlight also means that there will also be less solar input. By injecting large amounts of sulphur particles in the atmosphere, the resulting diffusion of light will cut power output of concentrated solar power installations by as much as a fifth (Parker, 2009). This means that there will be less reliance on solar energy as a form of energy and more on conventional resources such as coal, which in turn will increase carbon emission, negating the effects of sulphur introduction.
At the present situation, the concept of sulphur injection has yet to be field tested on large scale basis and potential consequences can only be explored through computer simulations (Mooney, 2008). A trial of one geoengineering scheme showed that tempering with the planet can have unintended consequences; pouring iron into the southern ocean was supposed to simulate a growth of plankton that is supposed to absorb carbon dioxide, but it could result in the production of a potent neurotoxin, putting the lives of birds fish and even humans at risk (Marshall, 2010). To introduce foreign particles into the atmosphere without truly understanding the complexity of it, meant that we might be imposing consequences on the environment that are far beyond our calculations.
It is also vital to remember that a world cooled by managing sunlight will not be the same as one cooled by lowering carbon emission (Keith, Morgan, Parson, 2010). The root of the problem in climate change lies in the fact that carbon emission have exceed the rate at which nature ecosystems are able to break them down. The introduction of SRM will only act as a temporary remedy, as the amount of carbon emission will eventually reach a point whereby even SRM can no longer be effective in reducing global temperature. The reduction of carbon emission might require collateral efforts on international scale, and it might take a while before the process takes effect, but it remains the only process free of consequences in the long run.
While it is likely that the lure of SRM might just overwhelm all reservations and force the UN and IPCC to make it their primary focus, there are several factors and issues they should consider before fully committing to the clause. Geoengineering is not just a linear outcome process; it can produce implicit effects on social and political issues. By focusing primarily on reducing carbon emission, we are focusing on the root of the problem itself and more efforts can be placed on this project, ensuring the sustainability of it.
Reference:
Bleja, D. (2006-2009). CO2 emissions, birth rate & death rate simulation. Retrieved 22 March, 2010, from Breathingearth: http://www.breathingearth.net/
David W, K. Parson, E. Morgan, M, G. (2010). Nature. Research on global sun block needed now, 426-427.
Marshall, J. (15 March, 2010). Ocean geoengineering scheme may prove lethal. Retrieved 29 March, 2010, from Discovery News: http://news.discovery.com/earth/geoengineering-carbon-sequestration-phytoplankton.html
Mooney, C. (23 June, 2008). Can a million tons of sulfur dioxide combat climate change. Retrieved 22 March, 2010, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all
Parker, R. (11 March, 2009). Atmospheric sulphur particles cut solar power output. Retrieved 22 March, 2010, from FuturePundit: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006032.html
No comments:
Post a Comment