The authors of Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, have a new book out (SuperFreakonomics) and they were featured this past Friday on ABC’s 20/20 news program. Climate change was among the topics covered in the book and the television program. You can watch excerpts of the program here (parts 3 and 4 are the most relevant).
Many of the points the authors raised are already well known. For example, how methane emitted by cows and other livestock are 25X more damaging to the environment than CO2, or how locally-grown produce is not necessarily ‘more green’ than imported produce when viewed from a total carbon footprint perspective. But what interested me most about the interview was their suggestion that the quickest, cheapest, and most effective solutions to climate change will be those that are scientifically engineered, not those that depend mostly on legislation and behavior change.
The authors, for example, highlight some of the research being conducted by Intellectual Ventures (IV), an “invention company” founded by Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief strategist and chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation. One of IV’s ideas is called the StratoShield. Here is an excerpt from a whitepaper published by IV about the idea (you can also watch a short video here):
The StratoShield is one possible way to respond to a climate emergency in which greenhouse warming becomes intolerable. The StratoShield would reverse greenhouse warming by slightly reducing the amount of solar radiation that hits the Earth. The shield does this by increasing the amount of sulfur aerosols injected into the stratosphere by about 1%, a process that happens naturally whenever volcanoes erupt. The aerosols reflect incoming sunlight back into space. Although the change in sunlight would be imperceptible to human eyes—and probably beneficial for plants—it would have a substantial cooling effect for the part of the Earth under the shield.
The [StratoShield] would pump [sulfur aerosols up to the stratosphere] in liquid form through a very long hose, suspended by one or more balloons. Atomizers at the top of the hose would spray the clear liquid out into the air as a very fine mist, which wind currents would then spread around the circumference of the planet.
Interestingly, The Atlantic published an article this summer by Graeme Wood on this very topic (see “Re-Engineering the Earth”). The focus of Mr. Wood’s article, however, was more cautionary, as the following excerpt illustrates:
As the threat of global warming grows more urgent, a few scientists are considering radical—and possibly extremely dangerous—schemes for reengineering the climate by brute force. Their ideas are technologically plausible and quite cheap. So cheap, in fact, that a rich and committed environmentalist could act on them tomorrow. And that’s the scariest part.
The science behind geo-engineering is outside my area of expertise, so I can’t really say whether the StratoShield is a good idea or not. But I agree with what it and other ideas symbolize: that the road to a timely and cost-effective climate change solution will be off the beaten path, and it will be paved by engineers and scientists, not politicians.
From a supply chain perspective, I go back to what I wrote in February 2008, where I compared the trends occurring in the pharmaceutical industry to what should occur in ‘green’ supply chain management (see “Inconvenient Truths About ‘Green’ Supply Chain Management”):
As we reach the limits of what traditional medicines can accomplish, the pharmaceutical industry is investing heavily in biotechnology and stem cell research, revolutionary new ways to treat diseases. It’s not about ingesting chemicals to treat symptoms; it’s about deciphering the inner workings of our DNA, understanding how a group of cells turn into a lung, or a heart, or a liver, so that when our organs are afflicted with disease, we can generate new ones. This is the future of medicine, and it’s quickly approaching.
And as we reach the limits of what current ‘green’ initiatives can accomplish, we need to transform the DNA of our supply chains. We must change the way we design products and supply chain networks; we must create completely new business models and redefine supplier and customer relationships; and we must reshape our expectations as consumers.
I think a “timely and effective” solution paved by “engineers and scientists, not politicians” is dangerous for the very reasons that they look attractive i.e. we don’t need to change behavior.
Think about this more holistically. A technical solution only delays the same outcome we are faced with today. But what’s worse, is that the fix then will be even harder than what feels like a very expensive solution today.
Isn’t a technical fix here the equivalent of covering your current bills by finding a way to increase your credit limit, rather than living within ones means?
These are well intentioned and creative ideas. Let’s make sure we look at solutions holistically and consider unintended consequences.
Now I’m confused. According to the Freakonomics piece, methane is the bad guy. I think you reported a while back that the culprit in green house gases for Stoneybrook Farm is what the cows leave behind (methane gas). Now this article saying natural gas leaves less than coal and petroleum. Yet, I’m fairly certain natural gas is greener than petroleum. Methane pales in comparison to CO2 in what makes up greenhouse gases, but is it more powerful.
Regarding zuza’s comments, I agree we should find holistic solutions that are well thought out. However, I’m a lot more optimistic in mankind controlling physical changes than human behavior.
Giles,
Thanks for the comment. Yes, methane is a far more potent GHG than carbon dioxide, but far less of it is emitted into the atmosphere. Also, according to Wikipedia, natural gas (comprised mostly of methane) produces less carbon dioxide per joule delivered than either coal or oil, and far fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels. But it does emit some CO2 nonetheless.
In short, natural gas is not perfect from a green perspective, but all things considered, it is “less bad” than oil or coal.
Adrian
Zuza,
Thanks for your comment. I don’t disagree with you that behavioral changes are also important. I just don’t believe that it is enough to fix the problem when you consider the scale of the problem and how little time we have to fix it (assuming, of course, you believe the models and predictions).
To use the analogy referenced in the 20/20 program, what we need is the equivalent of a “polio vaccine” for climate change. Or to use a more current example, when it comes to controlling the spread of H1N1, do you have more faith in a vaccine or in people actually washing their hands more often and always covering their mouths when they cough or sneeze(‘behavior changes’)? The latter is certainly important, but I’m sure glad the scientific community has also responded with a vaccine.
Finally, I completely agree with you that “we look at solutions holistically and consider unintended consequences.” That was the whole point of the posting I referenced: http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2008/02/22/inconvenient-truths-about-green-supply-chain-management/
Adrian