Is engineered global dimming an acceptable or workable solution to global warming?

I was quite bewildered by comments made by Tim Flannery that it might actually be a good idea to pollute the atmosphere in order to reduce global warming:

• www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/19/2249568.htm
• www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html

Aren't we already doing this anyway? And with disastrous consequences for the world's climate? I don't know which is scarier: learning about global dimming from a BBC documentary, or hearing the country's leading spokesperson on climate change advocating it. "We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve," he said. I fail to see any sense in that. Which of us has gone mad?

#sheila_1" id="sheila_1">Against: I think Flannery may have gone mad. When I think that all we have to do is work less, the idea of putting more pollution into the atmosphere is simply ridiculous, and certainly not something that we have to actually work on. … Sheila

#james_1" id="james_1">For: In general, I have been unimpressed with TIm Flannery, particularly for his failure to take a strong stance against population growth. However, what Flannery is supporting might not be an altgother bad idea. I heard on the radio (probably Radio National) a few months back a fairly credible scientist proposing this. If we get everything else right, including the achievement of population stability, putting a lot of soot high up into the atmosphere could actually buy us time, either slowing down or stopping altogether global warming. It could be done fairly cheaply with large naval guns . The scientist wasn't at that point advocating that it be done, rather he was advocating that we start seriously thinking about it and start thinking carefully of all the side effects as well as benefits. I realise that technological measures such as this usually make matters worse rather than better, but there seems a reasonable chance that this might be an exception. James

#mike_1" id="mike_1">Against: Have you been smoking the same stuff he has? The simple solution of Abandoning Affluence is just too untenable for anyone who has everything and wants to hang onto it. I also think that most people think the Simpler Way is pure drudgery, and I can tell you it isn't. … though I'd also be the first to admit we are not yet living the Simplest Way! I just can't help thinking that if we completely stopped squandering so much energy and started using it at 5% the current pace (maybe even less) we could have enough left to lead quite comfortable and happy lives. Am I being too idealistic here? Mike

#jill_1" id="jill_1">Against: Couldn't this cause unexpected serious side effects because of lack of sunlight?- e.g vitamin D deficiencies..and not only in humans? and what about animals and plants deep in the ocean that may rely in small amounts of light from the sun which would not reach them if we had an impediment in the atmosphere? This could have far reaching effects. Would this type of pollution affect the global total of photosynthesis? (The cause of most problems is solutions, I understand.) If things are really as urgent as Flannery says - so urgent that he would seriously suggest mass pollution of the atmosphere then he should be shouting from the rooftops that we must have an end to growth, that we must forsake whatever it is they make out of woodchips and stop logging our forests immediately , that production of anything should be reduced to the bare necessities and he should be telling the Australian government to lead the world with a no-growth, wartime emergency austerity example. I know , it would "ruin the economy". :-) but it's far less dramatic than blasting sulphur or whatever it is into the sky. Jill

#james_2" id="james_2">For: I accept most of what was written in #mike_1">Mike's and #jill_1">Jill's posts. However, I don't see how they negate my argument. Clearly, as I already stated, we (as opposed to the selfish elites now guiding of our destiny) have to evaluate the potential side effects and decide if the risk of adopting that propsed form of climatic engeineering outweighs the risks (or, rather, certain consequences) of not doing so. What seems to be inevitable, if we don't do everything we possibly can, including ending the export of coal to the extent possible (see #comment-477137">Will the great immigration debate take-place on larvatusprodeo.net) is that hundreds of millions around the world including 40 million in Shanghai alone stand to be inundated by rising tide waters. If a technological 'quick fix' that could prevent this catastrophe from occuring can be found, and it can be shown that the benefits of doing this are likley to considerably outweigh the side-effects, then I think it should be used. Of course there are political risks that even contemplating such measures will feed to overall complacency, but I don't think that that is a reason in and of itself for rejecting this proposal out of hand. James, 12 Jun 08

#peter_1" id="peter_1">Against: The quickest way of dimming by particulates would be, dare I say, horror of horrors - with nukes. I can't stop think that sooting up with, or without nukes, is a balmy idea. Sevareid's Law comes to mind: The chief source of problems is solutions. Peter, 12 Jun 08

#ross_1" id="ross_1">Against: It is likely to have a significant effect on the hydrological cycle, and could potentially return sub-Saharan Africa to extended droughts; IOW, millions of poor Africans who aren't contributing much, if anything, to global warming will die. But then they're unlikely to have white skin... Ross, 12 Jun 08

#mike_2" id="mike_2">Against: You are drawing such a long bow James..... Could? We don't even know that. How much greenhouse emissions would be needed to achieve this? I think we've fucked enough with the planet, this scheme is brainless! Just the acid rain would finish off all the biodiversity left, not to mention further acidifying the oceans.… We need to stop the madness NOW, not enhance it! Ross, 12 Jun 08

#denis_1" id="denis_1">Against:Jim, Technology has only ever enabled civilization to make use of natural resources, often with unintended consequences. Using fossil fuels to provide the energy that has driven the development of industrial civilization has initiated an irreversible climate change. That has been one of the biggest mistakes! Technology has never provided a means of producing these natural resources, many of which, like oil, evolved over eons. The future operation of civilization entails irreversibly using what is left of the natural capital, with oil being only one of the components. There needs to be widespread understanding of this reality for society to better cope with the inevitable powering down. I have established all these points in 'What went wrong?' but doubtless it will be years before they change the mindset of those who have been brought up to believe in the omniscience of the almighty dollar. Denis, 12 Jun 08

#sheila_2" id="sheila_2">Against: I mistrust any techno-solution that (a) benefits polluting industries, (b) enracinates capitalism (because this will always then trump natural and social capital), (c) involves cooperation of a bunch of corporatised governments, (d) is endorsed by suspect peak bodies (e) and by male apes subject to peer pressure in high altitude conditions (f) and by Sir Gustav Nossal However, I admit that (a) I have a gut reaction to the technofix and abusing nature and ape-prosthetics (b) I haven't examined the proposal in detail (c) and looked carefully at who benefits corporate-wise (always a key to the worthiness of any project, no matter how good it might sound. Therefore, I would like to have a good look at it. I also need an update on the scheduled rise in the waters which are on course to inundate 40 million Shanghai residents - timing of floods and trends in population numbers. I was expecting the numbers to be quite reduced by the time the sea-levels impacted. Comment: There is nothing more elevating to a debate than actually knowing what one is talking about, so I'll attempt to reform my approach here. Can anyone tell me the latest on the population trajectories and the sea-level trajectories? Sheila N