The Australian: "It is Not in the CSIRO's Interests to Censor its Scientists". (November 4, 2009)

In the second of its three editorials today's Australian quotes the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's (CSIRO) website as emphasising that the organisation: undertakes a wide range of research to inform and improve the health, welfare, sustainability and productivity of people, communities, regions and industries.

And the broadsheet then writes that CSIRO: "was never intended to be a mouthpiece pandering to government sensibilities. Yet the agency has gagged publication of a paper by one of its senior environmental economists, Clive Spash, a paper that attacks the Rudd government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as an ineffective way to cut greenhouse emissions."

What Dr Spash has said is: "While carbon trading and offset schemes seem set to spread, they so far appear ineffective in terms of actually reducing GHGs (greenhouse gases). Despite this apparent failure, ETS remain politically popular amongst the industrialised polluters. The public appearance is that action is being undertaken. The reality is that GHGs are increasing and society is avoiding the need for substantive proposals to address the problem of behavioural and structural change."

The Australian concludes: "Far from censoring its scientists to ensure they toe the government's line, the CSIRO should be helping lead public debate by exploring the cost benefits of various options of reducing carbon, from the application of energy sources such as LNG and nuclear power to sequestration of carbon in soil and the development of biochar. Stifling informed debate increases the likelihood of inferior outcomes."

So far CSIRO has released a statement that the organisation's chief executive, Megan Clark, is looking into the matter and the Minister in Charge, Senator Kim Carr, told The Australian that "he was seeking a briefing from the CSIRO". However, to date both parties seem to be lyin' low and sayin' notin'.

______________________________________

Here we might add that on September 2, 2009 TFW referred its readers to the Royal Society's 90+ page report Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty.

We wrote then:

     In summary the report considers the following three techniques to be the most promising:

• CO₂ capture from ambient air – this would be the preferred method of geoengineering, as it effectively reverses the cause of climate change.  At this stage no cost-effective methods have yet been demonstrated and much more research and development is needed.

• Enhanced weathering – this technique, which utilises naturally occurring reactions of CO₂ from the air with rocks and minerals, was identified as a prospective longer-term option.  However more research is needed to find cost-effective methods and to understand the wider environmental implications.

• Land use and afforestation – the report found that land use management could and should play a small but significant role in reducing the growth of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.  However the scope for applying this technique would be limited by land use conflicts, and all the competing demands for land must be considered when assessing the potential for afforestation and reforestation.

Should temperatures rise to such a level where more rapid action needs to be taken, the following Solar Radiation Management techniques were considered to have most potential:

• Stratospheric aerosols – these were found to be feasible, and previous volcanic eruptions have effectively provided short-term preliminary case studies of the potential effectiveness of this method.  The cost was assessed as likely to be relatively low and the timescale of action short.  However, there are some serious questions over adverse effects, particularly depletion of stratospheric ozone. 

• Space-based methods – these were considered to be a potential SRM technique for long-term use, if the major problems of implementation and maintenance could be solved. At present the techniques remain prohibitively expensive, complex and would be slow to implement. 

• Cloud albedo approaches (eg. cloud ships) – the effects would be localised and the impacts on regional weather patterns and ocean currents are of considerable concern but are not well understood.  The feasibility and effectiveness of the technique is uncertain.  A great deal more research would be needed before this technique could be seriously considered.

         The report considered the the following approaches "to  have lower potential":

• Biochar (CDR technique) – the report identified significant doubts relating to the potential scope, effectiveness and safety of this technique and recommended that substantial research would be required before it could be considered for eligibility for UN carbon credits. 

• Ocean fertilisation (CDR technique) – the report found that this technique had not been proved to be effective and had high potential for unintended and undesirable ecological side effects.

• Surface albedo approaches (SRM technique, including white roof methods, reflective crops and desert reflectors) – these were found to be ineffective, expensive and, in some cases, likely to have serious impacts on local and regional weather patterns.

Princeton University geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer, co-author (with Robert H. Boyle) of a 1990 book, Dead Heat: The Race Against The Greenhouse Effect and a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), told ScienceInsider: "'It’s a pretty good report; it’s definitely constructive,' but he emphasizes the uncertainties even more than the report does. The report’s recommendation for further research will, he predicts, make it clear that the risk of geoengineering is too high, no matter how fierce the greenhouse turns out to be."