permaculture

["Nicholas Roberts" <nicholas@themediasociety.org>]

you might not be interested in global geo engineering solutions... but
it is interested in you

I am interested in trying to apply Permaculture to Gaia Theory

how do you managed a planet ? we are managing a planet now anyway,
just really, really badly

the way that power is structured in the world system we will end up
with a Mc Donalds Haliburton Green Zone surrounded by Darfur's
everywhere...


Are 'Hail Mary' Technological Solutions Our Only Hope to Prevent
Disastrous Climate Change?
By Steve Connor, Independent UK
Posted on January 2, 2009, Printed on January 2, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/116743/

An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology is needed to save
the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of
leading scientists carried out by The Independent. The collective
international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely
curbing emissions may become necessary.

The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global
temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that
either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the
air. This "geoengineering" approach -- including schemes such as
fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms -- would
have been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being
seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency
backup plan that could save the planet from the worst effects of
climate change, at least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions.

What has worried many of the experts, who include recognised
authorities from the world's leading universities and research
institutes, as well as a Nobel Laureate, is the failure to curb global
greenhouse gas emissions through international agreements, namely the
Kyoto Treaty, and recent studies indicating that the Earth's natural
carbon "sinks" are becoming less efficient at absorbing man-made CO2
from the atmosphere.

Levels of CO2 have continued to increase during the past decade since
the treaty was agreed and they are now rising faster than even the
worst-case scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, a United Nations body. In the meantime the natural absorption
of CO2 by the world's forests and oceans has decreased significantly.
Most of the scientists we polled agreed that the failure to curb
emissions of CO2, which are increasing at a rate of 1 per cent a year,
has created the need for an emergency "plan B" involving research,
development and possible implementation of a worldwide geoengineering
strategy.

Just over half -- 54 per cent -- of the 80 international specialists
in climate science who took part in our survey agreed that the
situation is now so dire that we need a backup plan that involves the
artificial manipulation of the global climate to counter the effects
of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. About 35 per cent of
respondents disagreed with the need for a "plan B", arguing that it
would distract from the main objective of cutting CO2 emissions, with
the remaining 11 per cent saying that they did not know whether a
geoengineering strategy is needed or not.

Almost everyone who thought that geoengineering should be studied as a
possible plan B said that it must not be seen as an alternative to
international agreements on cutting carbon emissions but something
that runs in parallel to binding treaties in case climate change runs
out of control and there an urgent need to cool the planet quickly.

Geoengineering was dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but it
has recently become a serious topic of research. Next summer, for
example, the Royal Society, in London, is due to publish a report on
the subject, led by Professor John Shepherd of the National
Oceanography Centre at Southampton University. Professor Shepherd was
one of the scientists who said that a plan B was needed because he was
now less optimistic about the prospects of curbing CO2 levels since
Kyoto was agreed, and less optimistic about the ability of the Earth's
climate system to cope with the expected CO2 increases.
"Geoengineering options... must not be allowed to detract from efforts
to reduce CO2 emissions directly," said Professor Shepherd, who
studies the interaction between the climate and oceans. In answer to
the question of whether scientists were more optimistic or less
optimistic about the ability of the climate system to cope with
increases in man-made CO2 without dangerous climate change, just one
out of the 80 respondents to our survey was more optimistic, 72 per
cent were less optimistic, and 23 per cent felt about the same.

Professor James Lovelock, a geo-scientist and author of the Gaia
hypothesis, in which the Earth is a quasi-living organism, is one of
those who is less optimistic. He believes that a plan B is urgently
needed. "I never thought that the Kyoto agreement would lead to any
useful cut back in greenhouse gas emissions so I am neither more nor
less optimistic now about prospect of curbing CO2 compared to 10 years
ago. I am, however, less optimistic now about the ability of the
Earth's climate system to cope with expected increases in atmospheric
carbon levels compared with 10 years ago," he told The Independent. "I
strongly agree that we now need a 'plan B' where a geoengineering
strategy is drawn up in parallel with other measures to curb CO2
emissions."

Among those who oppose geoengineering is Professor David Archer, a
geophysicist at Chicago University and expert on ocean chemistry.
"Carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere will continue to affect
climate for many millennia," he said. "Relying on geoengineering
schemes such as sulphate aerosols would be analogous to putting the
planet on life support. If future humanity failed to pay its 'climate
bill' -- a bill that we left them, thank you very much -- they would
bear the full brunt of climate change within a very short time."

Gummer set for green role

The former Tory cabinet member who publicly fed his daughter a
beefburger during the outbreak of so-called "mad cow disease" is in
line for a leading role in helping the Government fight against global
warming, writes Nigel Morris.

John Gummer, who served as Environment Secretary in the previous
Conservative government, has been shortlisted for the post of chairman
of the Committee on Climate Change. He is one of three candidates
being discussed in Whitehall to succeed Baron Turner of Ecchinswell.
The others are Rachel Lomax, a former Treasury official who has
recently retired as a deputy governor of the Bank of England, and Sir
John Harman, former chairman of the Environment Agency.

Mr Gummer, 69, has been a Conservative activist for almost half a
century and has spent 34 years as an MP. He represents the safe seat
of Suffolk Coastal. A 16-year spell in government culminated with his
promotion by John Major to Environment Secretary, when he was regarded
as a pioneering minister, introducing the landfill tax and the
fuel-price escalator.

Mr Gummer said last night he knew nothing about the vacant post.

Fixing the planet Could technology help save the world?

Injecting the air with particles to reflect sunlight

Volcanic eruptions release huge amounts of sulphate particles into the
upper atmosphere, where they reflect sunlight. After Mount Pinatubo
erupted in 1991, sulphates reflected enough sunlight to cool the Earth
by 0.5C for a year or two. The Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen suggested
in 2006 that it may be possible to inject artificial sulphate
particles into the upper atmosphere -- the stratosphere. However, the
idea does not address ocean acidification caused by rising CO2 levels.
There may be side-effects such as acid rain and adverse effects on
agriculture.

Creating low clouds over the oceans

Another variation on the theme of increasing the Earth's albedo, or
reflectivity to sunlight, is to pump water vapour into the air to
stimulate cloud formation over the sea. John Latham of the United
States National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado
is working with Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University and Mike Smith
at Leeds to atomise seawater to produce tiny droplets to form
low-level maritime clouds that cover part of the oceanic surface. The
only raw material is seawater and the process can be quickly turned
off. The cloud cover would only affect the oceans, but still lower
global temperatures.

Fertilising the sea with iron filings

This idea arises from the fact that the limiting factor in the
multiplication of phytoplankton -- tiny marine plants -- is the lack
of iron salts in the sea. When scientists add iron to "dead" areas of
the sea, the result is a phytoplankton bloom which absorbs CO2. The
hope is that carbon taken up by the microscopic plants will sink to
deep layers of the ocean, and be taken out of circulation. Experiments
support the idea, but blooms may be eaten by animals so carbon returns
to the atmosphere as CO2.

Mixing the deep water of the ocean

The Earth scientist James Lovelock, working with Chris Rapley of the
Science Museum in London, devised a plan to put giant tubes into the
seas to take surface water rich in dissolved CO2 to lower depths where
it will not surface. The idea is to take CO2 out of the short-term
carbon cycle, cutting the gas in the atmosphere. Critics say it may
bring carbon locked away in the deep ocean to the surface.

Giant mirrors in space

Some scientists suggest it would be possible to deflect sunlight with
a giant mirror or a fleet of small mirrors between the Earth and the
Sun. The scheme would be costly and prompt debate over who controls
it. Many scientists see it as contrary to the idea of working with the
Earth's systems.

(c) 2009 Independent UK All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/116743/

-- 
-- 
Nicholas Roberts
[im] skype:niccolor