So how serious is the Bush Administration about its newfound commitment to addressing global climate change? Never mind. We all know the answer to that.
The better question is: To what lengths will the Bush Administration go to avoid cutting greenhouse gas emissions?
How about physically blocking sunlight?
From the Sydney Morning Herald (via Balkinization):
The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: “Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.”
. . .
The US submission complains the draft report is “Kyoto-centric” and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported “the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting”.
It also complains that overall “the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change”. It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.
Basically it’s the same old song and dance, with the added twist of using additional dramatic manmade alterations of the Earth’s climate to solve the problem of manmade alterations to the Earth’s climate.
So here’s a good story for an enterprising environmental reporter. Which U.S. companies or industries are most likely to benefit from an official policy of creating “sunglasses” for the planet itself? Of the various technologies considered potentially feasible (if that’s not giving the idea too much credence), who stands to benefit financially? And how much money have they contributed to the GOP?
Seriously. You expect the Administration to go to great lengths to avoid the regulation of emissions. But this policy alternative doesn’t just bubble to the surface without someone outside of government pushing it. So who’s the culprit?
Update: I may have set myself up for a slew of emails about why this idea is or is not technically viable. For more on that separate issue, you might check out this BBC report on “global dimming” and this blog post on geo-engineering.
