SCIENCE ADVISER LAYS OUT CLIMATE AND ENERGY PLANS
By Andrew C. Revkin
New York Times
April 9, 2009
Original Link John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, began speaking to the media on Wednesday for the first time. The Associated Press emphasized some statements he made in support of testing ways to counteract global warming through what has become known as “ geo-engineering” -- emergency interventions to cool the atmosphere should less drastic measures fail. Dr. Holdren said that the Associated Press article implied incorrectly that this strategy for climate management was under serious consideration at the White House. This is not the case, he said in an email distributed to a variety of scientists and other contacts last night:
"I said that the approaches that have been surfaced so far seem problematic in terms of both efficacy and side effects, but we have to look at the possibilities and understand them because if we get desperate enough it will be considered. I also made clear that this was my personal view, not Administration policy. Asked whether I had mentioned geo-engineering in any White House discussions, though, I said that I had. This is NOT the same thing as saying the White House is giving serious consideration to geo-engineering -- which it isn’t -- and I am disappointed that the headline and the text of the article suggest otherwise."
Dr. Holdren’s support for research on geo-engineering aligns him with Ralph Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, who told The Times in 2006, “We should treat these ideas like any other research and get into the mind-set of taking them seriously.” Their notion is to have a “Plan C” if emissions trajectories are not bent downward and the higher end of warming projections comes to pass.
But this is a charged issue for many environmentalists and some scientists (including Jane Lubchenco, the new under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere) who oppose such interventions with nature because they could produce unintended harms, falsely imply that we can engineer our way out of any problem or blunt efforts to cut emissions of greenhouse gases at the source.
In a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon, Dr. Holdren told me he felt personally that geo-engineering should be a focus of any smart research menu on climate, as a hedge, but in no way obviated the need for curbing heat-trapping emissions. Here are some points he made about the energy challenge underlying the climate challenge:
When asked what steps could propel a broad quest for ways to expand the world’s energy choices without increasing climate risks, he said:
"The stimulus package has made a big down payment on this. A further down payment is in the form of the research and experimentation tax credit. Ideally that should be made permanent. The trouble with it now is that it’s only been renewed on a year-at-a-time basis. There have been periods when it was allowed to lapse entirely before being reinstated. What you need with that sort of thing for it to have the desired effect is for the private sector to be able to count on it."
He said the Obama administration’s first steps aimed at repairing the country’s innovation pipeline were lauded in a letter sent to the White House by the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, a coalition including a wide range of universities, scientific societies and businesses.
I asked him how much direct federal investment in energy research and development would be sufficient.
"I think every serious group that has looked at how much the United States is spending on energy technology and innovation ends up with the conclusion that we need to be spending somewhere between 2 and 10 times as much as we are now if we really want to get the pace of improvement in the energy portfolios we’re going to need. My judgment is that the right number is probably in the middle. I doubt we need a factor of 10 rise. President Obama’s plant for $15 billion a year over the next decade in the U.S. is as good a judgment as any."
Is climate change the prime issue of our time?
"Before I was appointed, I was saying that the intersection of energy, climate and the economy is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Obviously another is avoiding blowing up substantial chunks of our society and others with nuclear weapons….
"Without energy there is no economy. Without climate, there is no environment. Without the economy and environment there is no well-being. We’ve got to get this right as an intersection of problems. Right now, we’re getting energy and an economy in ways that are wrecking the climate.
"There are going to be ultimately some difficult debates about how much we need to do and how fast in climate, and over which approaches will be more difficult from an economic standpoint.
"The president sees this as an integrated set of issues. The economic part and energy part are crucial. But you’ve got to get climate right, too."
............
Join the geo-engineering google group to track daily discussions on this question:
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering............
NHNE's Climate Change Resource PageNHNE's 1000 Most Recent Climate Change Articles