Obviously, carbon biosequestration using a GMO has drawbacks including unintended consequences, and the necessary use of public space perhaps needing permission. Obious drawbacks of rapidly rebuilding our energy infrastructure are cost, and the possiblity that this mitigation strategy will be too little, too late.

Perhaps it would be prudent to utilize both strategies simultaneously-all I’m saying is depending solely on cutting our emissions both drastically and fast is a bankrupt stategy with little chance of success. With nature both emitting more and soaking up less, plus developing nations continuing their emission increases, our costly and politically doubtful cuts would be overwhelmed

“We now have evidence from the Earth’s history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die.” (Revenge of Gaia)

Excellent and too little discussed. I have been trying for a year to get the issue of tipping points and prevention into the discussion of climate change and catastropiIes. It is not only a technical and risk assessment issue, but also a major political challenge.

For most people to get seriously involved, they will need a clear idea of the deadlines to aovid these tipping points. Sort of like the movies of approaching asteroids. I think we need people pushing for leadership that will spell it out – even if the scientists continue debating, we need to get the insurance in place in time.

I will add some text from one of my proposals below.

Walter
————

“Y siento la obligación ?como debemos sentirlo todos? de hacer un especial esfuerzo para evitarle a la humanidad una catástrofe fatal”

“I feel the obligation – as we all should – to make a special effort to avert a fatal catastrophe for humanity.” Fidel Castro, October 30, 2006

Leadership needed to make prevention of coming climate change catastrophes a choice for the world.

Index:
1. Introduction
2. Summary
3. Current Situation
4. Proposal a. Summary b. Requirements c. Benefits and Costs i. Implementation ii. Dangers iii. Focus & Goals
5. Resources a. Definitions b. Tipping Points i. Tipping Points Summary Table
6. Citations
7. Links

Introduction: Return to Index
The purpose of this proposal is to address the serious omission of the idea or choice of prevention of catastrophic climate change as a goal in the discussions and responses to the threat of climate change. As recent as August 2006, the concept of prevention was almost entirely missing in the media and environmental discussions of so called “Global Warming.” In the face of overwhelming threats, we are all too familiar with the phenomena and danger of avoidance. In this most serious situation, even though the majority of the world’s scientists have been predicting the likelihood of irreversible and catastrophic climate changes, there has been little discussion or programmatic focus on how to actually prevent these predicted catastrophes. This proposal argues that our best response to climate change is not to avoid the difficult question of prevention, but is to organize for a conscious focus on and commitment to prevention of the coming catastrophes.

Then on October 30th 2006, President Fidel Castro became perhaps the first world leader to directly call for prevention of these catastrophes (see heading above). As usual, Fidel’s prescient call was ignored by the majority of the world’s media, which suggests that perhaps, if the need for prevention was instead presented by the non-aligned nations and other self-interested countries together, then such a call would be more difficult to ignore. Once the question of preventing these catastrophes was available to the public, the possibility of preventing climate change catastrophes could become a choice they could make and demand, hopefully while there is still time to succeed.

Yet, currently even the possibility of making prevention of climate change catastrophes a priority goal is still missing from most of the world’s public discussion and is still not a conscious and informed choice available for people to consider and respond to. The idea of actual prevention is still missing even though the immensity and irreversibility of the potential consequences of failure demand serious consideration of prevention as soon as possible to maximize the chances for success.

[See full proposal below.]

Current Situation: Return to Index
The current state of public response to environmental change is in flux. While the concept of prevention as a decision or strategy is still missing from most media and public awareness, the UN IPPC reports and findings are spurring more serious acceptance of the crises and the need for worldwide responses. While individual scientists and some organizations are now calling for major efforts to stop the process of “Global Warming” and increasingly accept the fragile nature of our ecosystem, comprehensive plans to prevent the catastrophic effects have yet to be presented to the public. This leaves the public in an increasing state of anxiety, without sufficient knowledge or leadership.

Signs that the environmental movement is getting closer to calling for serious prevention plans are evident for example in Al Gore’s more serious comments in his addendum to his film “An Inconvenient Truth” and in MoveOn.org’s call to launch a movement seeking action on climate change. “Climate change is a danger uniting all the people of the world, but global leaders are ignoring the crisis. MoveOn is helping launch a new worldwide action network—Avaaz.org—to give people across the planet a voice.”

Unfortunately, poor leadership in the face of these threats has fed the public’s reactions of avoidance, futility and even hopelessness. In the past, even some scientists shrugged off the call to seek to prevent the catastrophes with “it’s probably too late.”

Whereas in the past, scientists were careful to stress uncertainty and disagreements, now there is sufficient consensus to unite around the need to act. Crises, tipping points and looming catastrophes need to be further examined, but it is primarily leadership and concrete plans that address these issues that need to be developed. The past efforts at Kyoto, Kenya, and Rio etc. are clearly inadequate. The problem remains the built-in opposition of those who perceive the loss of their profits as paramount. A major recent example is the serious study by the U.S. Center for Naval Analyses17 which comes to the conclusion that the chaos and worldwide suffering that will result from climate change must be militarily defended against as threats to our national security and interests.

Compromise that is detached from the worldwide, human consequences remains our enemy.

So whatever catastrophes threaten and however much time we have, the only rational response is to attempt their prevention. Initially we must prevent the agenda being dictated by those who will again compromise the science and the outcomes in their interest and against the needs of the vast majority of humankind. To prevent a continuation of this current suicidal leadership, the many smaller and more vulnerable countries need to be in the forefront of what happens next.

[As examples of how the tipping points and consequences are not yet being sufficiently addressed, see the social, economic and political factors in the Tipping Points Summary table below.]
…….

For a GMO to remove billions of tons of CO2, that implies that you will be growing billions of tons of biomass in the oceans. The environmental impact of such an activity would need to be addressed. Also, I understand that there are many existing species of fast growing trees that would be easier to deploy than a GMO.

Finally, the same political gridlock blocking alternatives (even wind power has opposition) would certainly arise against the large-scale use of a GMO. The gridlock has to be addressed for any of the solutions. Perhaps the climate youth leaders can think about the gridlock issue as they move forward.

Here is the equation:
If we need to dramatically slow down CO2 levels in the air rising fast, but natural and mankind’s emission are expected to increase, how are we going to avoid dangerous warming?

Here is the assumed solution:
Mankind has to dramatically cut their emissions fast, so we aren’t overwhelming nature’s ability to remove the CO2.

Here is the flaw in the reasoning:
With electricity demand dramatically increasing, burning coal will increase. Furthermore, nature and developing nations will continue dramatically increasing emissions. Finally, nature will substancially decrease her ability to remove the CO2 from the air.

Here is my solution:
I suggest we improve nature’s ability to remove the CO2 from the air using genetic engineering-perhaps seeding a GMO into the oceans. Biosequestration is a low cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible way to reduce the CO2 level in the air. By the way, mechanically removing the CO2 from the air would need vast sums of energy, be very difficult to do on such a vast scale, and will cost tremendous amounts of money.

Here is the problem with the alternatives:
The great expense of reducing human emissions is creating political gridlock, delaying action. Furthermore, any reasonable cuts we in the developing world make in our emissions will be overwhelmed by developing nations and nature. Finally, cutting emissions is a weak mitigation strategy because it depends upon leaving the elevated CO2 in the air until nature slowly removes it. Besides, if the carrying capacity of the world declines, we will have much less resources to completely rebuild our energy infrastructure.

Conclusion: There is no feasible planetary rescue that doesn’t include removing the CO2 from the air. Biosequestration could save billions of lives, and trillions of dollars. Sole relience on the weak mitigation stategy of drastically cutting emissions fast will very likely fail.

Do you mind if I cross-post this in part or in it’s entirety at WattHead?