THE MANHATTAN PROJECT - John Wawrzonek

THE NECESSITY OF THE IMPOSSIBLE


It Has Been Done Before

Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C

T. Gasser, C. Guivarch, K. Tachiiri, C. D. Jones & P. Ciais Nature Communications volume 6, Article number: 7958 (2015) doi:10.1038/ncomms8958 CLICK HERE FOR LINK

THE MANHATTEN PROJECT

When The Impossible Absolutely, Positively Must Be Done


OR WE SADDLE FUTURE GENERATIONS WITH HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO RECOVER A LIVABLE EARTH.

concludes with the need for reduced carbon emissions in combination with some method of carbon capture. Some limit this to power generators and other major sources and some advocate active scrubbing of the atmosphere.

THE PRIMARY DIFFICULTY IS THAT there are a substantial number of uncoordinated research projects, mostly in the demonstration phase. They even include absorption by rock of a particular type that is plentiful in Quatar. Others include new methods of farming and the planting of millions of trees.

ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN great emphasis on computer models of the atmosphere, I am not aware of any comprehensive modeling for returning the atmosphere to 350 ppm. To a great extent I suspect this is related to a lack of data on the various methods.

I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT the need of a "Manhattan Project" for some time, and it just stuck me that such a program has several advantages. First if it is publicized properly, it shifts the emphasis from output to input and gives everyone a goal that is easier to comprehend than the enormous multitudes of emission.

THE THIRD REASON IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL and that is the race between reducing carbon output in which case zero is still too high because the Earth will continue to warm for hundreds of years and reducing it to 350ppm as rapidly as posible even if it should take decades or centures.

HOWEVER, THE MOST IMPORTANT GOAL is to keep the temperature below 2°C above the long term base line. There does seem to be a consensus that this is a critical temperature to avoid permanent and serious damage to the planet. In fact many scientists think 1.5°C is necessary but that is no longer possible.

So the sooner negative emission of some kind(s) become practical the greater the chances of limiting damage to the earth.

And with the emphasis on negative emissions I think there is the dual benefit with the right publicity of also accomplishing more agressive emission reduction. The most difficult part is to find leadership. If FDR were president it is concieveable that we would have the leadership necessary. So the approach to president Trump is on the order of "the destroyer of worlds" with the big carrot being "the savior of the world."

Alternatively leadership would come from China and/or Europe. Both are stepping up their efforts and I believe that China sees this as an opportunity to drastically improve its position as leader while simultaneously positioning the US as a third world country.
Powered by SmugMug Log In