I read an interesting article today about some research by a German Nobel prize winning climatologist. His thesis was that it would be possible to reverse the effect of global warming by increasing the volume of sulpher in the stratosphere. The sulpher would reflect solar energy in much the same way that large pyroclastic eruptions cause sulpher to become trapped in the troposphere to similar effect. In fact they say that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo led to a 0.5 degree reduction in average global temperatures in the following year. Professor Crutzen estimate the annual cost of an engineered solution to be $12.5bn and $25bn per annum.
This thesis in itself is interesting. However, what seems more interesting to me is the moral dilemma: Are we now reaching a point where global consensus towards CO2 emissions reduction is beyond redemption and therefore a reactive solution should be encouraged? Or, by so doing, are we appeasing the industrial realpolitikers and therby ringing the death knell of multilateral emissions reduction? Can geo-engineering research co-exist with a global emissions control agenda?
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Spoke today to Robin (Mather) about progress on the bike build. The logistics of the build are getting tight for our trip to Corsica. It looks like the bike will go to Argos in Bristol for spraying on Monday or Tuesday and should be ready for collection on Saturday next week. We have been busy ordering all the parts for the build and hopefully we won't be caught short next weekend. All being well, we'll be leaving for Corsica on Monday...hope there won't be too many mechanicals!
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Ended up having dinner on the Veranda at the Chateau de Limelette this evening...so hot still at 10pm. I think this must be driving the waiting staff to new Fawlyt Towers style service...come to think of it one of the waiters did look a little like Manuel.