Parar el cambio climático y… morir en el intento

[Visto: 1444 veces]

La revista Spiegel publica una entrevista a David Keith sobre la geoingeniería y sus posibilidades. Como se anunciaba en un artículo anterior este es un tema que está adquiriendo cada vez mayor importancia en la medida que disminuyen las posibilidades de un acuerdo mundial sobre el cambio climático y comienza a ser tomado en cuenta en los informes del Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC).

Keith no es un improvisado, no solo trabaja hace años el tema en Calgary, es además profesor en Harvard y Cambridge. Varios de los temas que se tocan son importantes y merecen atención, por ejemplo el costo implicado es tan bajo, que algún millonario podría inyectar azufre en la atmósfera cuando le parezca, ya que no hay impedimento legal para ello.  Señala también que se trata de un juego peligroso que puede terminar en una catástrofe, y por ello debe ser cuidadosamente realizado. Tampoco es la solución a todo, por ejemplo la acidificación de los mares no se vería corregida. Finalmente habla sobre los que se denomina el “riesgo moral” de la propuesta, en la medida que permite a los escépticos decir que si pasa algo ya se tiene la solución, y en consecuencia continuar contaminando.


Aquí algunos de sus artículos.

Aquí la entrevista:

SPIEGEL: Professor Keith, are you a climate fixer?

Keith: That’s what they said in the New Yorker, right? People have called me all sorts of things. But I wouldn’t say that. I’m a professional whose work is on climate technology, on so-called geoengineering.

SPIEGEL: How would you describe the goal of climate engineers?

Keith: Geoengineering is the deliberate attempt to alter the climate on a global scale.

SPIEGEL: That’s quite a bold claim. The New Yorker quotes you saying that you could easily imagine how the tools of climate engineering could spur “a chain of events that would extinguish life on earth.”

Keith: … and a lot of my colleagues were unhappy I said that. What I mean by that is the following: If we use this technology with wisdom and humility, and in combination with big emission cuts, then it will almost certainly be a benefit to the world. But it’s our responsibility to ask: What is the worst that could happen? What if the user goes nuts? What if humanity decided to commit some kind of racial suicide?

SPIEGEL: Then, you want to say, geoengineering might be the technology to use? In other words: You are dealing here with the most dangerous technology in the world?

Keith: Well, yes and no. There has been a lot of talk about the analogy to nuclear weapons. And in one way the analogy makes sense: This technology has a huge amount of leverage, meaning relatively small amounts of material give a huge amount of power. But the big difference is it all moves slowly — in years, not minutes. This gives us more room to think and proceed carefully.

SPIEGEL: Critics have accused geoengineers of trying to play God …

Keith: … and maybe it’s a fair attribution. I don’t think I’m playing God, but I do think the phrase captures some of what’s going on here: the desire to deliberately alter nature on a global scale.

SPIEGEL: And you share this desire?

Keith: Well, mankind is already changing the planet. Take agriculture, the emission of carbon dioxide, the intervention in the nitrogen cycle.

SPIEGEL: But in all those cases people didn’t intend to change the planet.

Keith: You’re right, but intention matters — as we also distinguish between manslaughter and murder. But the intention of myself and my colleagues is actually to reduce mankind’s impact on the natural environment, which is very different from the intent to design it to our liking. As long as we just try to slow down the rate of climate change, I wouldn’t say that we are playing God.

SPIEGEL: How exactly would you slow down climate change?

Keith: The idea is to make earth a little bit more reflective by putting say, sulfate or sulfuric acid aerosols in the upper atmosphere. This method is cheap, effective, quickly implantable but rather imperfect.

SPIEGEL: Why imperfect?

Keith: Because it cannot deal with all problems with CO2 in the atmosphere. For example, it does nothing about ocean acidification.

SPIEGEL: And what do you mean by “cheap?”

Keith: According to my estimate the injection of a dose with an appreciable effect on climate would cost about a $1 billion per year — which is essentially zero if you compare it to the costs of climate damage, which are expected to be at least a $1 trillion a year by mid-century.

SPIEGEL: A billion dollars! This is, in fact, frighteningly cheap. It means that any billionaire could start to change the climate according to his will?

Keith: True. We have a case here, where low cost is not necessarily good. But I don’t consider it to be very credible that an individual would be doing this. A government would be able to prevent him.

SPIEGEL: And what if some small island state that feels threatened by rising sea levels decides to cool down the earth a little bit?

Keith: Even in that case the international community has lots of mechanisms to stop this. My real concern is the big countries, like Indonesia, India or the United States.

SPIEGEL: Whoever injects sulfur into the stratosphere will put heavy risks on health and environment. This doesn’t frighten you?

Keith: No doubt there are considerable risks. Eventually the sulfur will settle down into the lower atmosphere. And then there’s the ozone loss risk.

SPIEGEL: Ozone damage means more ultraviolet radiation on earth, and this means an increase in skin cancer fatalities. Would you accept fatalities for the sake of climate therapy?

Keith: I don’t think the fundamental justification is hard. We routinely introduce technologies which threaten some people. If you build a power plant, you are adding some air pollution, and new air pollution means deaths. And, by the way, the net impact of sulfur aerosols on mortality is by no means sure. They do reduce ozone, but they also increase UV scattering, which reduces UV exposure down on earth.

SPIEGEL: How well do you know whether you can actually achieve your ultimate goal to slow down climate change with these sulfur aerosols?

Keith: Well, we know a lot about that. Aerosols in the stratosphere reduce the rate of climate change. This is what we expect from basic theory; this is what we observe after eruptions of volcanoes like Pinatubo (which erupted in the Philippines in 1991); and this is what we see in every climate model that has ever been tested for the impact of aerosols.

SPIEGEL: Some people seem to be concerned that the Asian monsoon might be severely altered by such an aerosol therapy.

Keith: The Indian monsoon has indeed become a touchstone of this confused debate. The whole argument started with an early paper by Alan Robock, who said that geoengineering could shut down the monsoon and threaten billions of lives. He is right to focus on potential impacts on the poor, but the really bad outcomes only come when models are run with a crazy amount of geoengineering. Most models — including Alan’s own results — show that modest interventions can significantly reduce climate impacts in the Indian subcontinent. It’s as in pharmacology: An overdose of a drug is fatal — but a small dose can save a life.

SPIEGEL: When you talk about manipulating the climate, do you mean the regulation of average world temperature as a whole, or will it someday also be possible to tune climate differently in different locations?

Keith: This is delicate question. As an engineer you think, the more control the better. But I think in this case we might be better off if we couldn’t turn too many knobs. While I oppose any military use of climate technology, you can be sure of one thing: The more targeted or tailored this technology gets, the more seriously military use will be considered.

SPIEGEL: Is it technically feasible to fine-tune the climate locally?

Keith: Sure it is. I have even published on this, but I wonder how much we should go on in this direction.

SPIEGEL: You won’t be able to detain research anyway.

Keith: Not perfectly, but a little bit. Public programs have clearly stated goals. And you have the choice, whether making tailored modifications should be one of those goals.


Puntuación: 0 / Votos: 0

Deja un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *