Olivine Geoengeneering

Pavan Sukhdev, leader of a European Commission studying biological diversity, explained in 2008 the dilemma we face today when he said: “The treatment of climate change by the Stern Review surfaced an issue which had been widely recognized but not tackled squarely: how to assess a roll of the dice, when one of the outcomes is the end of civilization as we know it?” If the Status Quo is running a risk of ending civilization as we know it, we have an obligation to reduce that risk in any reasonable way we can. Reduction of that risk will be our goal and our voting criterion in today’s debate. INHERENCY. Some disturbing facts about the Status Quo FACT 1. Record Atmospheric Carbon. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in 2013 hit 400 parts per million http://tinyurl.com... “A monitoring station in Hawaii recorded carbon dioxide concentrations of 400 parts per million Friday, dramatically up from the 316 parts per million recorded when the station made its first measurements in 1958. The monitor, high atop the Mauna Loa volcano, offers the longest-running record of atmospheric carbon dioxide measured directly from the air. Carbon dioxide is a primary greenhouse gas, efficient at trapping heat from the sun. The colorless gas is released from power plants and vehicles as they burn coal, oil and gas. “[The] increase is not a surprise to scientists,” said Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “The evidence is conclusive that the strong growth of global [carbon dioxide] emissions from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas is driving the acceleration.” FACT 2. Current efforts are inadequate – we need geoengineering. We need to reduce CO2 emissions, but it’s just not happening. That means we need to start exploring how to modify the environment to increase the earth’s ability to absorb CO2 after it’s already emitted. http://www.innovationconcepts.eu... “Mankind burns at considerable economic, social and environmental cost in a few hundred years the fossil fuels that have formed over hundreds of millions of years. Weathering cannot keep up with this greatly increased CO2 production, and the atmosphere's CO2 content is rapidly rising. Many of the most weatherable rocks are now covered by a thick weathering crust - called lateritic soils - which effectively prevents them from further contributing to CO2 capture (Fig.1). The preferred response to date has been to reduce the rate at which fossil fuels are burnt – in principle at least. However despite widespread agreement as to this objective, there has been little actual progress to this end (IPCC 2007, Prins & Rayner 2007). It therefore makes sense to prepare to deploy ‘geoengineering’ solutions.” The URGENCY. Let’s look at the RISK and the IMPACT of growing atmospheric CO2 in 2 subpoints.First the RISK: Catastrophic climate change http://www.cbo.gov... “There is a growing scientific consensus that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other Greenhouse gases, which result from the burning of fossil fuels, are gradually warming the Earth’s climate. The amount of damage associated with that warming remains uncertain, but there is some risk that it could be large and perhaps even catastrophic.” IMPACT: Trillions of dollars in economic damages http://tinyurl.com... “Climate change is unlikely to be catastrophic in the near term, but it has the potential for serious damages in the long run. There are big economic stakes in designing efficient approaches. The total discounted economic damages with no abatement are on the order of $23 trillion.” The GOAL: Reduce atmospheric CO2. The risk and its impact are so great that you should vote Affirmative if we can offer you any reasonable means of CO2 reduction. http://wordpress.clarku.edu... The challenge of reversing rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is growing with the continued expansion of CO2-emitting energy infrastructure throughout the world and with the lack of coordinated, effective measures to manage and reduce emissions. Given this situation, it is prudent for society to explore all potential carbon management options, including those with seemingly low probability for success. We have a PLAN. Congress votes to fund and authorize the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration to do the following: 1. Olivine Research. Research into optimal methods of introducing crushed olivine particles in the oceans through land distribution with river runoff, coastal zone application, and/or by ship directly into the sea, to increase oceanic CO2 capture 2. Pilot Programs. Small scale pilot programs to test olivine distribution, followed by… 3. Wide scale olivine usage. Results subject to continuous monitoring and testing. Program is canceled if negative impacts outweigh the benefits. 4. Funding from cuts in Head Start 5. Plan takes effect the day after an Affirmative ballot 6. Affirmative speeches may clarify as needed. The ADVANTAGES: ADVANTAGE 1. Cost-effective reduction in atmospheric CO2 Dr. R.D. Schuilling & Prof. P.L. DeBoer 2010 “The olivine option, in the coastal zone and on the land, is a cost-effective way to counteract the increase of CO2 level in the atmosphere, at the same time mitigating ocean acidification. The volume of olivine needed for the neutralisation of human fossil fuel burning is ∼7 km3[seven cubic kilometers] /year, that is about 1 m3[one cubic meter] /human. This is a large amount indeed, but comparable to the volume of fossil fuels which mankind burns annually, expressed in oil equivalent∼10 km3 /year, i.e., ∼1.4 m3 /human. Olivine is produced in open pit mines, while hydrocarbons are often retrieved from kilometres depth in often remote areas. Olivine weathering is a natural process that takes time, years to decades when applied to suitable environments. Contrary to CCS [carbon capture & storage], the effect is not instantaneous, but in the course of the coming decades in which society will continue to produce CO2 and to be threatened by continued greenhouse warming, the annual addition of large volumes of olivine to suitable environments will counteract the rise of CO2 level of the atmosphere and the acidification of ocean waters.” ADVANTAGE 2. Better environmental policy-making. It’s better to start testing geoengineering options now and find out if they work, rather than waiting until the crisis forces us into desperate, uninformed decisions. http://www.tos.org... “The geoengineering options discussed to date by scientists and engineers have not figured prominently in policy discussions because of the perception that they may have detrimental environmental consequences, are prohibitively expensive, or both (Schneider, 2008; Jones, 2009; Morton, 2009; Royal Society, 2009). However, the appropriate course of action is to evaluate the relative financial and environmental costs of each emission reduction or geoengineering option, compare them to the anticipated costs of adaptation if that particular option is not adopted, and then rank them by a set of standards agreed upon by policymakers. IPCC Working Groups II and III should undertake these activities as they prepare the next assessment report. The initial step in the above process cannot be undertaken without a serious investment in geoengineering research and development. Financial and environmental costs can only be estimated by conducting scalable experiments with reasonable levels of control and replication. As these experiments are scaled up, they will become increasingly difficult to control and replicate. In addition, their financial costs and environmental impacts will likely increase at least proportionally with their scale. Geoengineering experiments will raise serious ethical and legal issues, and society may ultimately decide that most of the proposed approaches cannot be implemented on a global scale because of their anticipated risks to the environment and our socioeconomic well being (e.g., ocean fertilization; see Strong et al., 2009). However, investing in geoengineering research now will enable policymakers to make informed decisions based on science rather than uninformed decisions made out of desperation.”I hae created a beautiful model for fixing the harms that we see in the ststus quo. Please vote affirmative.