Can we safely use geoengineering approaches to help cool the planet?

We may need to try to experiment with certain geoenginnering approaches to stave off catastrophic global heating. This can buy us time to implement carbon emissions reductions to avert the worst effects of catastrophic climate change. Obstacles: We cannot fully predict the outcomes with present knowledge, though we know that some approaches are less wise than others.

Can people come up with ways that countries may try and cheat their Copenhagen agreements so we can realise it if they try and do so?

I have read that some countries have tried to base their carbon emission reductions on non-1990 levels and some have argued they shouldn’t have to reduce theirs as much because of low 1990 carbon emissions in their country and that they are basing their reductions on what each other will do and the economy. It seems like they are using arguments to get out of doing what’s needed to have a good chance of avoiding runaway climate change so if we come up with ways they may try to “pull the wool over peoples eyes” with, if they then try and do that people can then notice it and perhaps try and convince them not to be dishonest.

How can we rapidly develop carbon negative energy systems and deploy them globally?

Sub-questions: What options for carbon negativity are there? What are the thermodynamic limitations on the various carbon negative alternatives? How can we break the linkage of large grants going to unproductive and ineffective entities? How can small farmers become the engine for carbon negativity that Sir James Lovelock suggests they must? Are there alternatives to the current IPO model for this kind of development cycle? What are the real time constraints for effective activity in the carbon negative arena? How can we explain these constraints to the general public?

Sir James Lovelock has identified the apparent only real carbon negative energy opportunity – processing organic residues into stable biochar and using that char as a soil enhancement near where the residues occur globally and enabling small farmers to profit from this activity. He has not connected this to distributed energy generation and there are many factors that would benefit from both rapid documentation and codification for global use. The recent changes in Arctic thermal profiles raise serious questions about how long we really have to react. There is no question that lowering the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can only be accomplished with either massive reduction of emissions for an extended period so that normal carbon negative processes can catch up with the past emissions or we will have to find ways of accelerating the removal of CO2 with thermodynamically beneficial systems. What alternatives do we really have?

At the same time we need to also put in place a series of practices that will be stable over the long haul – ie: they must become sustainable. It appears that Sir James has hit on a realistic possibility to do many of these things at once, and he has seen that the normal corporate practice of enriching a few by doing things that we all should be doing for ourselves is no longer a tenable solution. How do we get to real sustainable practices in time to do things right?

How will natural and human controls on the atmospheric CO2 concentration operate under the influence of changing climate and changing society in the next 100 years?

We can budget the sources and sinks for carbon for the past 30 years, with increasing confidence over time (Global Carbon Project, 2009). However, we do not have a solid understanding of the mechanisms responsible for variability and change in the natural sinks; nor for potentially dramatic releases of CO2 from permafrost or methane clathrates. We have even less understanding of the societal controls on the CO2 source (beyond a basic need for energy), and thus we do not have a good basis to predict or to control emissions.