Deep Pockets for Short-sightedness

This is in response to the recent NYTimes article: It Takes Deep Pockets to Fight Global Warming

A quick summary: Michael Fitzgerald contends, in a non-pro or con article, that global warming will require billions to fight. Technologies such as carbon sequestration only get $100 million a year out of the $2 billion cut for clean-coal technology. Among other ideas Fitzgerald presents are >$5 billion satellites that capture solar energy and beam it back to earth, multi-trillion dollar sun shades and [my personal favorite] shooting particles in the air to reflect the sun (the parasol effect). Included is a venture capitalist (who helped invent Ethernet) who, "is surprised that the parasol effect is not getting serious research dollars, because it looks like the simplest and easiest way to deal with global warming. For one, it doesn’t rely on reducing carbon dioxide emissions." But it is too risky to be funded by short-sighted venture capitalists. And finally, "But [David M.] Reiner at Cambridge [a lecturer at MIT] expects that climate change will eventually become a research priority, much as the Strategic Defense Initiative, the space program and the Manhattan Project did. The problem won’t go away. Neither will the ideas."

Firstly, I understand that the section that this article fall under is "Prototype," where the goal is to show off new technologies. Unfortunately, these ideas have been given credibility--either that or proven technologies, such as solar, wind and geothermal are seen as unfeasible. Whatever the case, there's a problem when the general population believes that solar panels on a million roofs and a satellite beaming energy from space are equally feasible (read: solar panels = proven to work, beaming from space... not. so. much).

There are multiple problems with the proposed technologies in the article. Fore-mostly, none, except for beaming solar down to earth, deal with the inherent causes of the problem: we are producing too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG). Carbon sequestration and parasoling are band-aids. By avoiding cuts to our GHG emissions, we license continued and increased emissions, inevitably driving us towards scenarios where we either run out of space to store our CO2 or worse, we've saturated our air with so many particles, it's become dangerous to our health.

Personally, I think parasoling is out of the question. Throwing "particles" (read: chemicals) into the air sounds like a recipe for disaster. If committed to this scenario, I am certain we'll be faced with a dangerous trade-off: health versus effectiveness. In addition, as we emit more heat trapping particles, we'll have to emit more light reflecting particles, creating a scenario in which we have to constantly maintain balance. Furthermore, considering GHG effects often lag emissions by decades or more and is currently imperfectly understood, it may be a century before we actually do anything. By then, say goodbye to Bangladesh.

The biggest problem with carbon capture and storage is that it is most feasible with large, centralized production of carbon (power plants). While this may remove a large amount of our CO2 (I'm still not convinced that these storage sites are impermeable as many scientists contend, but I haven't read a lot on it), a significant portion of our emissions come from transportation. And here's the trade-off: carbon capture technology on vehicles = reduced fuel efficiency--assuming that capture and storage of carbon from vehicles is even possible.

And beaming solar energy? To the average person, it might seem no different than sending cell phone, TV, or radio signal from space, but in fact, it's hugely different. Antennas don't need a large amount of energy to transmit a signal. Essentially, you just need to transmit enough energy so that it gets through the atmosphere and still has enough definition to be distinguished from random signals (noise). But for power usage, you need to transmit that power. The article talks about $5 billion systems that could power a small city. We're talking somewhere around a couple hundred MW of power. So basically, you're focusing all of that energy into a tiny beam and shooting it at the earth. Eep! Not that I don't trust technology, but I don't. The tiniest mismatch basically creates a solar powered death beam. Furthermore, this is essentially what you'd be doing: taking energy from the sun, shooting the energy down from the sun to earth, and then harvesting that energy. Why waste billions of dollars to do what the sun does naturally (sending energy to the surface of the earth)? (okay, so you might get a few points of efficiency, but considering the cost of shooting things into space, it's probably not cost-effective. There are better ways of increasing solar conversion efficiency).

My point is, solar energy, the way we do it now through panels on the earth, has the potential to occupy 30% of our electricity grid; at current trends, solar electricity through panels on a roof could be cost-effective without government subsidies in a decade. Energy efficiency and conservation through higher fuel efficiency standards, better weatherization, and not using as much energy, has the potential to save carbon emissions in fractions of the aforementioned costs and can be deployed almost immediately. The old adage of shooting for the moon with global warming lands us among the stars of huge debt and little solved. Instead, by advocating technologies and practices that are available and viable TODAY, we can usurp the causes of global warming, mitigate the effects of fossil fuel pollution, and SAVE money in the future.

It doesn't take deep pockets to solve global warming; it takes people interested in practical, cost-effective strategies that are truly committed to solving the problem, rather than lining their own deep pockets.