Fight Pollution With More Pollution?
EmailPaul Crutzen has a theory: pump the atmosphere full of sulfur dioxide, and the particles will act as a sort of sunshade, reducing the effects of climate warming. There’s more HERE.
It’s not a terribly new theory, and to a lot of people it sounds a bit offensive–fighting one form of pollution by increasing another.
But since an August paper in the journal Climatic Change, Crutzen has been its most visible champion–and he’s not to be dismissed as a lightweight. He shared a 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry for proving, in the 1980s, that the ozone layer was at risk. (Among those less than impressed was Rep. Tom DeLay, then at the height of his influence, who called it the "Nobel Appeasement Prize.")
Debate fodder? That, at the very least, it is.
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
It most certainly is an interesting theory, but, as I recall (and as the link indicated), sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere returns to the earth’s surface as a very dilute form of hydrochloric acid, or, more commonly known as “acid rain.” I’m not sure it’s worthwhile trading global warming for acid rain, except maybe as a stopgap, last-ditch effort. It will be worthwhile to see what kind of debate occurs in the scientific community.
Posted by: chuck | December 19, 2006, 10:38 am 10:38 am
I have to wonder at the wisdom of adding sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere. It’s one of the chemical pollutants we’re having trouble with now, particularly in the Northeast U. S. The acid rain (sulfuric acid, by the way, chuck) is causing a lot of problems in lakes and forests.
Then, what do we do to get rid of it after it’s served its purpose? Seems like science has a habit of introducing little things to the environment to solve one problem, only to have it bite them in the behind later. Part of the “unintended consequences” theory.
Posted by: Andy | December 19, 2006, 11:32 am 11:32 am
At first glance this sounds like a rather idiotic idea. However, if anything maybe it will start people thinking of creative alternatives. There will never be a single method to combat global warming, it will take a myriad of ideas and methods to just get things to slow down to a manageable degree.
Posted by: Tom A. | December 19, 2006, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
Never a bad idea to debate alternatives, but there’s numerous problematic issues with adding sulfur. Acid rain is one. Mercury is second. The bacteria that convert Mercury to the toxic, bioaccumulating methylmercury, require sulfates and thrive in slightly acidic environments. Will adding more sulfer increase the rate of mercury methylation and boost methylmercury levels globally? It would seem wise to assume “yes” unless someone can prove “no”.
Posted by: JDS | December 19, 2006, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
Thanks for the correction, Andy. I knew it was sulfuric acid, but apparently my fingers didn’t when they were typing.
Posted by: chuck | December 19, 2006, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
Part of my work is to reduce sulfur from diesel fuel to decrease SOx emissions in exhaust fuel… It would be quite easy to introduce more into the environment by going back to the old high sulfur fuels used not that recently ago.
Posted by: Bill | December 19, 2006, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
Ironic, indeed, that Mt. St. Helens should begin rumbling just as we’re discussing causes for global warming. If adding sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere should be given a chance, then just drop a largish explosive into the cone. Just my way of adding sarcasm to things. I really don’t advocate such an egregious attempt.
There are a lot more causes: Cows with their constant addition of methane are another cause. Maybe we should switch to a vegetarian diet. Of course, that may shift methane production to us.
Posted by: Andy | December 20, 2006, 10:57 am 10:57 am