We can't afford to neglect ways to halt global warming

If we must research climate engineering, sucking carbon dioxide out of the air ought to be higher up our list of priorities

CLIMATE engineering experiments have an unfortunate habit of going wrong before they get going. Earlier this year, a project to test the feasibility of pumping sun-blocking particles into the stratosphere was cancelled after a mix-up over intellectual-property rights. Another high-profile test - of dumping iron particles into the ocean to stimulate plankton growth - failed miserably after being disrupted by protesters.

Such failures may be a source of satisfaction for those who find the idea of engineering the climate abhorrent. But the unpalatable truth is that we need to find out what works. There now appears to be little chance of avoiding at least 2 ?C of warming over pre-industrial levels. At some point we may have to try to engineer our way out of trouble.

That is why long-awaited results from an ocean fertilisation test are good news (see "Geoengineering with iron might work after all"). The technology has always looked promising but has acquired a bad reputation, not least because companies have tried to use it as a means of making a profit through carbon credits.

Now a publicly funded test has shown that the technology can work. It is not a panacea: at best it might soak up a tenth of emissions, and the effects of doing it on a large scale are not known. But it is something.

The results should also put CO₂ removal more generally back into the frame. For too long, this form of geoengineering has been overshadowed by sun-blockers. In 2009, for example, the Royal Society reported that aerosols sprayed into the sky were one of the cheapest and most effective methods. CO₂ removal generally scored worse on both counts.

But cost and effectiveness are not everything. Sunshades leave the root problem unsolved and would be hard to stop once started. For those reasons alone, CO₂ sinks deserve a chance.

They aren't getting it. The "new" data came from an experiment carried out in 2004. Funding for more tests, or even modelling, is virtually non-existent. Meanwhile, sunshade research attracts most of the cash. If we must research climate engineering - and sadly we must - we should at least give all the options a fair crack of the whip.

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.

Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article

Subscribe now to comment.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Source: http://feeds.newscientist.com/c/749/f/10897/s/2181a851/l/0L0Snewscientist0N0Carticle0Cmg215287420B30A0A0Ewe0Ecant0Eafford0Eto0Eneglect0Eways0Eto0Ehalt0Eglobal0Ewarming0Bhtml0DDCMP0FOTC0Erss0Gnsref0Fonline0Enews/story01.htm

andrew bird lizzie borden lizzie borden iona taylor allderdice mixtape andrew bogut pi day