Recently in Global Warming Category

By Dennis Posadas

Recently, a US based environmental group called the Center for Biological Diversity, petitioned the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clamp down on black carbon emissions. The petitioner asked the EPA to force each state with glaciers and sea ice to adopt the EPA standard on black carbon or set their own. The petitioners envision controls on black carbon emissions from diesel engines, particularly from heavy duty construction vehicles and construction equipment and vessels that traverse the Arctic, especially as the extent of sea ice diminishes.

But as John Topping Jr, President of the Washington, DC based Climate Institute (and a friend of the Philippine climate community) argues in several of his opinion pieces in Cleantech Asia Online and a forthcoming YaleGlobal piece, that a more universal way is to link black soot's climate effects to its well known detrimental health effects.

This has implications, particularly in a country such as the Philippines, as we practically breathe it in everyday.

Black carbon (or soot) is a key constituent of particulates from incomplete combustion. Previously published journal articles (Ramanathan and Carmichael, Journal of Natural Geoscience, 2008) say that the heat warming potential of soot is more than half of carbon dioxide, and its effects on sea ice and glaciers is even greater. Black soot lessens the albedo of glaciers, snow and sea ice in reflecting back solar radiation into space. Unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, black soot only stays aloft for days to weeks, meaning that any aggressive reduction not only contributes to health, but also almost immediately to climate change mitigation (MacCracken, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Assn, 2008).

In order to understand that better, think of the huge polar icecaps of the Arctic and Antarctica as huge mirrors (white instead of silvery) that reflect back sunlight back into space. Now, as with many white surfaces when exposed to soot, these reflective surfaces blacken a bit from soot in the air and reduce their reflectivity.

Think of those reflective signs along EDSA that used to be reflective, but are now barely noticeable. When brand new, you could see them clearly, but nowadays you could be a few feet away and bump into them because of all the black soot deposits. Now think of the polar icecaps as the Earth's cooling mirrors.

Here in the Philippines, the impact of black soot is obvious. Just look around, wipe the soot in your kitchen stove area, or on your face after a day of riding public transportation, or basically just about anywhere in our major cities. Two stroke engine tricycles hauling several passengers and heavy loads, even if they are not designed for that, emit black soot among other pollutants as these are not really designed for that purpose. Poorly maintained jeepneys, trucks, buses and cars all contribute to this. Even inefficient cookstoves are a culprit to black soot emission.

While the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases needs to be worked on, in order to reduce the risk of climate change, the reduction of black soot is a low hanging fruit that even individuals can work on. Black soot reduction is quite easy to implement, it quickly produces results, not just for our health, but also for our climate, so the rationale to cut it should easily be justifiable.

To strengthen the health rationale for financing the reduction of black carbon emissions, we need to add the climate mitigation potential. As of the moment, carbon credit mechanisms do not really include black soot reduction. Financing for black soot reduction can pay for the rehabilitation and replacement of old jeepney diesel engines, inefficient tricycle two stroke engines, and the like.

As Mr. Topping recommends in his YaleGlobal and Cleantech Asia Online opinion pieces, the carbon development mechanism (a.k.a. carbon credits) should include black soot reduction in its list of fundable activities. You do something not just for climate mitigation, but also for clean air and health as well.

Dennis Posadas is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009) and the Editor of Cleantech Asia Online (http://www.cleantechasiaonline.com). He just recently finished a new business fable on climate and clean energy.

###

by Dennis Posadas Coal is cheap and plentiful. Unlike oil, majority of which is controlled by OPEC states, coal can be found in many areas of the world, including the Philippines. As such, it has formed a significant portion of electric power generated worldwide, despite recent inroads by nuclear and renewable energy. Majority of those coal plants belch CO2 into the atmosphere, which is why NASA chief climate scientist Jim Hansen and many other experts say publicly that there should be a moratorium on the building of coal plants worldwide. Last April, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that six greenhouse gases were a threat to human health and welfare. Chief among the six greenhouse gases was carbon dioxide (CO2). One of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world is the electric power industry, particularly those that operate coal plants. The US alone emits around a billion-and-a-half tons of CO2 annually from electric power generation through coal. Try telling that to fast growing China and India, or the US. Or even to developing economies around the world like the Philippines. This needs to be discussed widely, because frankly, while clean energy is a great topic for discussion, there are still technical and economic issues in getting from where we are now to the point where we can replace coal totally. Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, one of the largest electric utilities in the US, said in an interview in an episode of 60 Minutes (a popular U.S. television show) earlier this year, that Hansen’s proposal to stop the building of new coal plants cannot be done. While Rogers was one of the first electric utility CEOs who used coal plants to acknowledge the problem of global warming from coal, he says that the industry will arrive at a solution, but not at the pace that Hansen is recommending. When asked if his company had already made the investments towards so called clean coal technology, he said that they are in the process of studying the alternatives. In reality, clean coal technology is really a way to capture the CO2 and store it underground. The technical term for the technology is called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). One way to implement CCS is to pass the CO2 emission through a group of compounds called amines. This mixture is then pumped about one kilometer deep underground, into rock formations which have a lot of cracks that can absorb the mixture. The intense pressure underground causes the CO2 to liquefy, where it is hoped that the CO2 will stay underground forever. The solid form of CO2 is dry ice, which most of us have seen. But the long-term effectiveness of CCS is still unknown. If despite the expense to implement, it will still leak CO2 into the atmosphere, then the exercise will be a gargantuan waste of resources. There are a limited number of sites around the world that have built CCS facilities but a study on the long term effectiveness of CCS has yet to be conducted. A coal expert who I spoke to, but declined to be identified surmised that one possible scenario is a leak caused by an earthquake in the vicinity, although he said that it was a hypothesis. Aside from this, the scale of CCS is mindboggling. Unlike the nuclear power industry which can take nuclear wastes and store it in distant centralized repositories like Yucca Mountain in the US, each coal plant will need to have access to a CCS facility nearby. The US alone emits more than a billion- and-a-half tons of CO2 a year, not counting China and India, which gives an idea of the undertaking. In the end, it could all boil down to costs. In 2004, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released a study called "The Future of Coal" which discussed the outlook for CCS technology. It estimated that to make CCS competitive, carbon emissions will have to be charged at around $30/ton. Recently, the US House of Representatives, through the Democrat sponsored Waxman-Markey bill, looks like it has arrived at a compromise, but will this be enough to justify CCS in new coal plants? Even if the US signs a treaty in Copenhagen later this year, it will be very hard to get private industry to support CCS if the economics doesn’t make sense. At this point theoretically CCS looks like a way to make coal a potentially non-environmentally threatening energy source. However, unless the technology and economics is brought up to speed and more research is done, it will remain simply a public relations tool brought up by the coal industry to fend off attacks against it for the moment.  _____ Dennis Posadas is the Editor of Cleantech Asia Online, a newly launched site devoted to opinions and insights about the Asia cleantech economy. He is also the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009)

By Dennis Posadas THE Philippines may be one of the world’s top supporters of Earth Hour and Earth Day. We may have a new Renewable Energy Act. But if all this does not translate into greenhouse gas emission reduction, then all that is for naught. After all, don’t you think it is time to move beyond token political statements on clean energy, and actually implement these clean energy projects? In order for GHG reduction to take effect, the Philippines to seriously take advantage of the new Renewable Energy Act, by having a companion ecosystem for innovation, financing, and deployment of renewable energy projects. That is why I am so pleased to find out that opportunities to finance clean energy projects were showcased in the Philippines Clean Energy Investor Forum last June 15 at the Edsa Shangri-La hotel. The forum showcased projects that evolved from a competition, sponsored by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Private Finance Advisory Network (PFAN). PFAN is a multi-lateral public-private partnership which is managed in Asia by USAID's ECO-ASIA Clean Development and Climate program and initiated by the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Climate Technology Initiative. The PFAN Philippines Clean Energy Investor Forum served as a platform for Philippine energy entrepreneurs to showcase their ideas to investors. Six finalists were chosen by PFAN for the Philippines Business Plan competition. Each of the companies received mentoring and one-on-one coaching before they formally made their investment pitches in the forum. The event was basically a dog and pony show of those seeking investments, before a group of investors who also want to invest in renewable/clean energy. The total value of investments of those who made it to the finals was potentially more than $500 million, comprising both debt and equity finance. In addition to offering promising investments, these projects have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per year, according to USAID. During the June 15 presentations, the panel of judges selected two Clean Energy Financing Award winners for the Philippines. The winner, Asea One, is proposing to setup 16 clean energy powerplants in Negros Oriental and the Western Visayas, while the other finalist, SURE is proposing to build, own and operate clean energy plants that run on feedstocks like rice husks and wood chips. "By bringing together clean energy entrepreneurs and investors, the PFAN Philippines Clean Energy Investor Forum is addressing the barriers that clean energy businesses face in seeking financing," said Jon Lindborg, Mission Director for USAID Philippines. "These barriers make it difficult for investors to identify and screen viable clean energy projects." USAID believes that by identifying and nurturing the best ideas, they can help facilitate financing for the projects. The Agency is also working to expand regional clean energy finance initiatives on a regional basis by developing a network of businesses and investors interested in promoting sustainable clean energy technologies and businesses. The next stop of the PFAN Investor Forum is Indonesia on June 25, and then Hong Kong, where the PFAN China Investor Forum will be held 27-28 September. It is great that we have the Renewable Energy Act in place, a product of all the years that groups like Greenpeace and WWF lobbied our Congress to implement. We can send all the representatives that we want to send to Copenhagen this year and have all the laws and policies in place, but if back home we do not build the ecosystem that will encourage actual clean energy entrepreneurs and ventures, we will simply be talking about greenhouse gas emission reduction, and not really doing anything about it. Dennis Posadas is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009)

By Dennis Posadas Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared officially that six greenhouse gases namely carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, are a threat to public health and welfare. Based on scientific evidence, particularly that summarized in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report of 2007, these greenhouse gases produce global warming which is responsible for stronger storms, changes in weather patterns, higher sea levels that inundate formerly habitable coastal areas, and other effects. This declaration by the EPA will hopefully be a precursor to how the United States will act in the Copenhagen summit this year. Copenhagen is where the world’s leaders will gather this year to find a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol which the Bush administration refused to ratify. Obama has long made it a priority to make the United States drive the technology for clean energy forward, in order to reduce greenhouse gases and cut their dependence on OPEC oil. Let me point out what many people already know, but some do not. If you shift from fossil fuel based energy (e.g. coal) to clean energy, you will cut greenhouse gas emissions. But how exactly does this affect the Philippines? Well for starters, we have a new Renewable Energy Act that was signed into law last year by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Key features of this law include tax incentives (no tax for seven years for clean energy businesses), a reduced tax after the seven year period has elapsed, payment for missionary (off-grid) electrification, incentives for domestic development and manufacturing. It also features a Renewable Portfolio Standard and a Feed-in-Tariff mechanism that was popularized in Europe, which gave rise to many of their clean technology companies there. What this means for the Philippines is that we simply need to get our act together , drive our academe and R&D institutes to do research on clean energy (e.g. micro hydro, micro wind, biogas, solar, energy conservation, biofuels, etc.), and try to transfer these technologies to the market as soon as feasible. In this way, we are able to create new green technology jobs and industries, and put the Philippines on the world map as a leader in clean and green technologies. Surprisingly, agriculture also contributes to global warming. The manure from farm animals produces methane. But fortunately the solution is a win-win solution. If you use the methane from the manure to generate electricity, you cut global warming and you also save electricity for the farm. We simply have to pick the niches we will play in. According to Fortune magazine, there was a company in China that was given around $4m in seed money a few years ago, not by the Chinese national government, but by the local provincial government of Wuxi, China. That company, Sun Tech, is now one of the largest solar photovoltaic companies in the world, and employs thousands of workers and generates several billion dollars a year in revenue. In India, a company called Suzlon Energy came out of nowhere to compete toe to toe in the large wind turbine category, with well-known companies like General Electric. Maybe we can specialize in typhoon resistant micro wind turbines that are ideal for tropical climates. Or micro hydro turbines. Or micro methane powerplants for agriculture. Or whatever we feel we can be world-class in. The point is to get the ecosystem going so that our researchers, our entrepreneurs, our investors, our policymakers, get together and decide that we are going to do this. Because we have limited resources, we should pick what technology we will be world-class in, and pour all our resources there, instead of trying to develop everything. We should begin to develop local technology companies that will be world leaders, and begin to shift our economy from a cheap manufacturing destination to one which develops and manufactures the products here. All the ingredients are there to build a clean tech sector in the Philippines. It is simply a matter of will on our part. Dennis Posadas is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009) and Rice & Chips: Technopreneurship and Innovation in Asia (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007)

By Marlowe Hood Agence France-Presse PARIS--Manmade climate change is set to hasten the disintegration of a massive ice sheet in Antarctica by 100,000 years, boosting sea levels some five metres (16 feet), according to a pair of studies published Thursday. The research, which matches new ice core data with a simulation of past and future changes in the West Antarctica Ice Sheet (WAIS), reveals for the first time regular cycles of "catastrophic collapse" and reformation reaching back five million years. Cycles lasted 40,000 years during the first three-fifths of this period, but have since more than doubled in length, explained David Pollard, a scientist at Pennsylvania State University and lead author of one of the studies. "But with global warming we are cutting short a natural cycle," he told AFP by phone. "The two studies combined show it is really likely that the WAIS will collapse in the next few thousand years. In the absence of human influence, it would probably happen only 100,000 years from now," he said. Rising sea levels is arguably the most serious long-term threat from climate change. The global ocean water mark is likely to go up by at least a metre before the end of the century, recent research has shown. That is enough to wipe out several small island nations, and to disrupt or displace tens of millions of people living in heavily-populated and low-lying delta areas in East Asia, African and the Indian subcontinent. Part of that rise will come from thermal expansion as ocean temperatures rise, a process scientists understand well and are able to forecast. But the world's two great ice sheets sitting atop Greenland and Antarctica remain climate change wild cards, with great uncertainty as to whether -- or how quickly -- they might shed their mass. A team of more than 50 scientists led by Tim Naish of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand extracted sediment samples reaching 600 metres below the surface of the WAIS. The findings showed a geological metronome of massive change across five million years, and provided the first direct evidence of total collapse. "Before there were hints of it collapsing like that, but we really didn't know until now," said Pollard, a co-author of the study, published in Nature. The new data also confirmed that the cycles of ice destruction and formation are closely linked to shifts in the tilt of Earth's axis as it rotates around the Sun, a process called obliquity. The period covered by the sediment samples -- the early Pliocene -- is of special interest to climate scientists because it so closely resembles the conditions forecast for Earth over the next 100 years. With global temperatures set to rise about 3.0 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, "more significance is being placed on the early Pliocene as an analogue for understanding the future behaviour of the WAIS and its contribution to global sea levels," the study says. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- some 400 parts per million (ppm) -- was also in line with projected 21st century levels, which have already hit 385 ppm and are still rising. In the second study, Pollard and Robert DeConto of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst simulate Antarctic ice sheet variations in a mathematical model over the past five million years in order to track the "grounding line", the shifting border between land and sea ice. "We found that the dominant mechanism attacking the West Antarctic ice has been variations in ocean melting under its large floating ice shelves," rather than changes in temperature or surface melt, Pollard said. "One of the next steps is to determine if human activity will make it warm enough to start the collapse," said Pollard.

Agence France-Presse SYDNEY -- A sharp slowdown in coral growth on Australia's Great Barrier Reef since 1990 is a warning sign that precipitous changes in the world’s oceans may be imminent, scientists said Friday. Strong evidence points to the cause being a combination of warmer seas and higher acidity from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Australian Institute of Marine Science researchers reported. "The data suggest that this severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least 400 years," said Glenn De’ath, principal author of a paper published Friday in the international journal Science. The research shows that corals on the reef have slowed their growth by more than 14 percent since the "tipping point" year of 1990 and on current trends the corals would stop growing altogether by 2050. "It is cause for extreme concern that such changes are already evident, with the relatively modest climate changes observed to date, in the world’s best protected and managed coral reef ecosystem," said co-author Janice Lough. Coral skeletons form the backbone of reef ecosystems and provide the habitat for tens of thousands of plant and animal species and more acidic oceans will affect many sea creatures, not just coral, a statement on the report said. "All calcifying organisms that are central to the function of marine ecosystems and food webs will be affected, and precipitous changes in the biodiversity and productivity of the world’s oceans may be imminent," it added. The findings are based on analyses of annual growth bands -- like rings on trees -- extending back in time up to 400 years. Rising sea temperatures are blamed on global warming caused by the build-up in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide -- which is also blamed for higher acidity in sea water. A UN report warned in 2007 that the Great Barrier Reef, described as the world's largest living organism, could be killed by climate change within decades. The World Heritage site and major tourist attraction, stretching over more than 345,000 square kilometres (133,000 sq miles) off Australia's east coast, could become "functionally extinct", the report said. The journal Science is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

THE Congressional committees on government reorganization and appropriation approved the creation of a “Climate Change Commission.” The committees are consolidating several proposals related to the creation of this new commission, including House Bills 400, 1775, 3291, 4051 and 4853. These proposals were from Representatives Roilo Golez (2nd District, Paranaque City), Orlando Fua (Siquijor), and Carmelo Lazatin (1st District, Pampanga), Rex Gatchalian (1st District, Valenzuela) and Ignacio Arroyo (5th District, Negros Occidental). The consolidated measure will require local government units (LGU) to implement climate action plans based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The consolidated measure will also create a Climate Change fund for financial assistance to “priority adaptation” and “mitigation projects” identified by the commission. LGUs will also benefit from the Climate Change fund. Congressman Fua said the creation of a Climate Change Commission intends to lessen the impact of this global phenomenon to Philippines. "Sea level rise will exacerbate inundation, storm surges, erosion and other coastal hazards thus threatening vital infrastructure settlements and facilities that support livelihood of island communities," Fua said.

Agence France-Presse PARIS -- Volcanic eruptions have periodically cooled the tropics over at least the last 450 years by spewing out particles that girdle the world at high altitude and reflect sunlight, according to a study released Sunday. The research adds a chunk of regional evidence to earlier work that found major eruptions -- such as Krakatoa, Indonesia in 1883 and Huaynaputina, Peru in 1600 -- contribute to cooling on a worldwide scale. A trio of scientists led by Rosanne D'Arrigo of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, looked at ocean temperatures in a belt extending from 30 degrees south across the equator to 30 degrees north. They compiled temperature records reaching back nearly half a millennium from three sources: ice cores, tree rings and coral reefs. They found the longest sustained period of cooling of sea surfaces -- to a depth of one meter (3.25 feet) -- occurred in the early 1800s following the eruption of Mount Tambora on the Indonesia island of Sumbawa. Tambora blew its top in 1815 and was the most powerful eruption in recorded history, ejecting about 50 cubic kilometres (12 cubic miles) of magma, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS). However, links between volcanic activity and cooler ocean surfaces weakened in the 20th century, apparently as a result of global warming from the burning of fossil fuels, the researchers say. Another study, also published online in the journal Nature Geoscience, points to a previously unrecognized potential driver of climate change. Intensive, chemical-laden agriculture could trigger the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from river systems, Henry Wilson and Marguerite Xenopoulos of Trent University in Ontario Canada argue. The researchers examined organic, meaning carbon-bearing, matter that had dissolved in 34 rivers in Ontario. Some of the rivers were pristine and others were heavily polluted by runoff from agricultural chemicals such as fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides. Pollution from these chemicals meant the organic material was likelier to release its carbon into the atmosphere, the study found. This factor should be taken into account by climate modelers, the study suggested.

By Anna Valmero INQUIRER.net MANILA, Philippines --WWF aims to convince over 10 million Filipinos to switch off lights on March 2009 in support of the organization’s call for action on climate change. Worldwide, the 2009 campaign aims to reach out over 1 billion people, of which 760 million is in the Asia-Pacific. “The year of 2009 is a special year for climate change. It is when all countries come at the Copenhagen meeting to decide the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol and set targets for greenhouse gas emissions to help reverse the effects of drastic climate change accelerated with human activities,” said David Valdes, WWF Philippines president and chief executive officer. “Earth Hour 2009 is a vote against climate change,” said Yeb Saño, WWF Philippines climate change and energy program head. The action is to call the attention of policymakers that people are aware and that authorities are needed to immediately act on the matter, he said. The Copenhagen meeting in 2009 will spell the big difference as policymakers draft a law that raises targets for carbon reduction and pressure countries like India, China and the United States to join the treaty, he said. Valdes said the Kyoto Protocol has not been very effective in curbing greenhouse gas emissions as developed countries like the United States have not ratified the bill. He added Kyoto Protocol targets are very low, when today the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is 50 percent above than the level in 1990. A consensus of 1,000 global scientists said 30 percent reduction in green house gases must be achieved. If greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced, sea levels will rise by 2050, posing danger to communities near the sea. “It would spell doom for the Philippines which is an archipelagic country,” said Saño. For 2009, WWF aims to have three metro cities -- Manila, Cebu and Davao -- shut off lights for one hour, along with the rest of the country. All SM malls, including the country’s largest Mall of Asia, will participate in the event. “It is notable smaller countries like us are the one active on taking action on the matter. Developed nations are always saying the targets are too high but we either act now or we pay the effects of global warming later,” said Saño. He said the current financial meltdown is not an excuse to take action because “at stake is the future of our planet.” Both Saño and Valdes lauded the recent passage of the Renewable Energy bill, which took 19 years in the making. They however said that local policy makers pass a law enforcing energy efficiency and energy conservation to be adopted across all sectors --from business to households. Both said it is also crucial the local government focus on projects like development of sustainable mass transportation and renewable energy sources to help reduce the country’s reliance on imported fossil fuels. Earlier in March 28 at 8:30 p.m., about 50 million worldwide participated in the initiative. About 76 cities in 62 countries, including nine cities in the Philippines, will join Earth Hour 2009. Cities in the country expected to participate include Manila, Cebu, Iloilo, Baguio, Davao, San Fernando, Puerto Princesa, Legaspi and Cagayan de Oro. In March 28, from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., the cities of Pasay, Manila and Paramour switched off lights along the entire Roxas Boulevard seaside strip and Makati held its own. The whole province of Palawan and Tawi-Tawi also participated. The participation of over 1 million Filipinos helped save 80MWh of energy, of which 56MWh is savings in Luzon alone. The Earth Hour lights-out initiative started when over 2 million in Sydney in 2007 as public awareness campaign on curbing the effects of climate change.

By Richard Ingham Agence France-Presse POZNAN -- With political efforts to tackle global warming advancing slower than a Greenland glacier, schemes for saving Earth's climate system that once were dismissed as crazy or dangerous are gaining in status. Negotiating a multilateral treaty on curbing greenhouse gases is being so outstripped by the scale of the problem that those promoting a deus ex-machina -- a technical fix that would at least gain time -- are getting a serious hearing. To the outsider, these ideas to manipulate the climate may look as if they are inspired by science fiction. They include sucking carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air by sowing the oceans with iron dust that would spur the growth of surface plankton. The microscopic plants would gobble up CO2 as they grow, and when they die, their carbon remains would slowly sink to the bottom of the sea, effectively storing the carbon forever. Another idea, espoused by chemist Paul Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize for his work on the ozone shield, is to scatter masses of sulphur dioxide particles in the stratosphere. Swathing the world at high altitude, these particles would reflect sunlight, lowering the temperature by a precious degree or thereabouts. More ambitious still is an idea, conceived by respected University of Arizona astronomer Roger Angel, to set up an array of deflecting lenses at a point between Earth and the Sun. Like a sunshade, they would reduce the solar heat striking the planet. Put forward in various forums and magazines, these so-called geo-engineering proposals have been dismissed by science's mainstream as a distraction or crackpot, with the risk of further damaging the biosphere. And even if such schemes are safe, they could cost many times more than reducing the heat-trapping pollution from fossil fuels that causes the problem, say these voices. But as the enormity of the problem looms ever larger, geo-engineering is shedding its untouchable status. "The notion of deploying geo-engineering research and even commercializing geo-engineering is enjoying a level of respectability in science policy circles that would have been unthinkable even three years ago," says Jim Thomas of Canadian-based watchdog group, ETC. One reason is "the level of panic" surrounding greenhouse-gas levels, which are growing at around three percent a year and are now more than a third greater than before the Industrial Revolution, says Thomas. Another, he suggests, is "an astonishing switch" by former climate skeptics and conservative lobby groups in the United States. After years of denial or contestation, these powerful forces have now suddenly accepted that global warming is a problem. They have seized on geo-engineering as a solution that would make it unnecessary to slap costly curbs on big polluters, he argues. The scientific establishment is still far from endorsing geo-engineering. Indeed, the UN's Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its landmark fourth assessment report last year, cautioned of the potential risk and unquantified cost of such schemes. All the same, geo-engineering is now getting a serious look by scientists and several names are cautiously saying it would be worthwhile to at least launch small-scale experiments to see how they pan out. This year, Britain's de-facto academy of sciences, the Royal Society, raised eyebrows when one of its journals published geo-engineering papers, which were balanced by a review by a top climatologist, Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. The Royal Society is carrying out its own analysis of geo-engineering, although it also makes clear that this act is not a sign of its approval. The report will be published in the first half of 2009. In an interview with AFP on the sidelines of the UN climate talks here, IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri agreed geo-engineering "is getting a closer hearing, and you are getting people who are very respectable advocating it in several cases." "But the very fact that it's undergoing scrutiny is a good sign, because [it reveals] all the implications and all the side effects that you might be saddled with," he said. David Santillo, a senior scientist with the Greenpeace Research Laboratories at the University of Exeter, southwestern England, said scrutiny is fine, but it should not be taken as acceptance. "There is a danger that the more these things get talks about, the more people assume that there is some inherent legitimacy with the proposals that are being put forward. That simply is not the case," said Santillo.