From Bill Johns
All alternatives to cutting carbon emissions to reduce global warming carry risks, but the methods reviewed by David Chandler seem particularly unfavourable (21 July, p 42). The simplest and cheapest method is to cover up to 10 per cent of the ocean surface with a material that has the optical properties of snow. This would reflect nearly 90 per cent of the solar radiation falling on it, as well as radiating as much heat as is currently radiated from that area of ocean, if not more.
The required properties could probably be achieved by treating conventional polymers to make this “artificial snow”. The necessary production capacity already exists, if we are prepared to forgo excessive packaging on our goods for a year or so. The cooling effect can be dramatic, as described in the section on modelling the effect of snow cover on my website www.globalwarming.chemcept.co.uk.
Whatever method is chosen, something will inevitably go wrong. The risks with sulphur dioxide – which is a greenhouse gas and a powerful source of acid rain – are obvious. The chances of correcting the effect of tonnes of pico-satellites in space are small. A reflective ocean blanket, by contrast, would be relatively easy to adjust.
There is a further disadvantage of the high-tech shading methods. The technology will be controlled by the richest, most powerful country at the time, which will, in effect, control the climate of the whole planet. Less influential countries may be unhappy with the climate that they get. A relatively low-tech solution would permit a genuine negotiation over climate.
Advertisement
Reading, Berkshire, UK
