Climate News Roundup

The climate news is coming so fast and furious, I can’t keep up!

At the Poles, Melting Occurring at Alarming RateThe Washington Post. A first-rate article on what’s happening at the North and South poles. Quotable quote: “I just don’t see a happy ending for this,” said Ted Scanbos, who studies the polar ice at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Wildfires force California to postpone EPA lawsuitBoston Globe. A tiny irony: Wildfires, whose severity may be in part due to global warming, has led to at least a week delay in the state suing EPA to let it restrict greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

How to Cool the GlobeNYT Op-Ed. A pro-geo-engineering piece. Climate Progress has previously debunked this particular strategy here and here.

4 Responses to Climate News Roundup

  1. Ron says:

    Did you see the story in Rolling Stone about ‘Prophet’ James Lovelock?

    Yep, it’s a new religion alright.

  2. Ambitwistor says:

    I think you’re too harsh to dismiss Caldeira’s op-ed. I assure you, he is as aware as you of the negative risks of geoengineering, e.g. here. He isn’t arguing that geoengineering is a replacement for abatement. He directly says that the vast majority of funding should go to abatement. He’s merely proposing that geoengineering should still be researched, in case abatement fails and we need a last-ditch backup.

    As you yourself have said, there is a real possibility that we could pass an irreversible climate threshold. We should do what we can to reduce GHG emissions to prevent us from crossing that threshold. That being said, it’s possible we might fail in this task. If so, even though geoengineering has serious problems, it might still be preferable to use it than to cross such a threshold.

    Geoengineering is only a problem when it is viewed as a replacement for abatement, rather than an emergency backup measure. Which was Caldeira’s point.

  3. Joe says:

    I know Caldeira knows the downside. He is the expert on ocean acidification, among other things. That’s what bothered me — he didn’t mention them at all. This is exceedingly misleading to the typical NY Times reader.

    I am sure we will get desperate in the coming decades and consider every possible strategy, including geo-engineering. I just don’t want to leave the public with the false impression that it is very likely to save us — particularly aerosol injection.

  4. Jay Alt says:

    Reading the editorial again I agree it is oversimplified and could be misleading to readers. (But if he’d been more careful, the media echo-chamber would just promote it without any cautions.) Since you’ve mentioned them, Realclimate has blogged this.

    Dr. Caldeira’s reply to the criticism, in more words than the Times gave him, is at comment #73.