» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments
» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments

Danish Think Tank Calls to Focus on Geoengineering Solutions to Global Warming

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 4, 2009

The Copenhagen Consensus Center, a controversial Denmark-based think tank focused on the environment and international development, proposed Thursday that world leaders should focus on a geoengineered solution to climate change in the near term rather than mandating cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

This Story
This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

The group, headed by statistician Bjorn Lomborg, issued a report by five economists that suggested it made more sense to spend money on marine cloud whitening research and green energy development than to protect forests, clean up diesel emissions or significantly raise the price of carbon.

"You need to find a short-term way -- meaning the next 50 to a hundred years -- to deal with climate change," Lomborg said, adding that making artificial clouds by spraying seawater into the atmosphere could address global warming at a cost of $9 billion. Theoretically, these clouds could reflect sunlight back into space and, therefore, curb global temperature rise. "If it's that simple, we would want to do it. We need to check out if it's that simple."

Several scientists questioned whether focusing on geoengineered solutions at the expense of major carbon reductions would adequately address the effects of climate change. Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, a geoengineering expert, said such a strategy "misses the point."

"Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions," he said. "If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it's pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly."

Brad Warren, who directs the ocean health program at the advocacy group Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, noted that even if marine cloud whitening worked, it would fail to address the fact that human-generated carbon emissions are making the seas more acidic and threatening marine life.

"I haven't seen anything in the area of geoengineering that protects the ocean from the chemical consequences of greenhouse gas emissions," Warren said.

The panel Lomborg commissioned to set the center's climate priorities had five economists, including three Nobel laureates. One of them, Finn Kydland of the University of California at Santa Barbara, joined Lomborg in a meeting Thursday with Joe Aldy, special assistant to the president for energy and the environment, to brief him on the report.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt confirmed the meeting but did not comment on how administration officials viewed the center's findings. "Administration officials meet with individuals and organizations who hold a wide variety of views about energy and environmental policy to listen to their ideas," LaBolt said.

Lomborg's center first sparked controversy five years ago when it suggested that humanity would be better off spending billions fighting HIV/AIDS, micronutrient malnutrition and malaria as opposed to global warming.



» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments
» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments

More Climate Change News

Green | Science. Policy. Living

Green: Science. Policy. Living.

News, features, and opinions on environmental policy, the science of climate change, and tools to live a green life.

In the Greenhouse

Special Report

The Post's series on the science behind climate change.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity