Bali and most other approaches focus mainly on reducing carbon emissions. But why? Scientists know, for instance, that the albedo effect (reflecting sunlight back) is a powerful way of reducing warming. Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories have calculated that if all the trees in the world were cut, atmospheric carbon would double. But snow in the higher latitudes would then reflect sunlight without being impeded by trees, and the cooling effect of this would exceed the greenhouse effect of more carbon, so the world would actually cool down! So, some people have suggested shooting giant mirrors or white parasols into orbit to increase the albedo effect. Others have suggested coloring all roofs, roads and sidewalks white. Still others suggest covering vast areas in deserts with white plastic. I have no idea whether these approaches will work, but clearly we need R&D in areas other than carbon reduction. Scott Barrett’s proposal provides explicitly for R&D in geo-engineering.

Catastrophic global warming is a plausible hypothesis, rather than a proven fact. So, carbon emissions are not proven sins. But since a climate catastrophe is indeed plausible, prudent countries should pay an insurance premium to guard against it. This premium should include R&D in not just carbon reduction but geo-engineering, albedo innovations, and other such areas.

Ironically, all our R&D efforts may turn out to be irrelevant, because the biggest breakthroughs in science have often come from not from applied research in a problem area but from unrelated, accidental discoveries in other areas. For instance, the discovery of X-rays hugely improved medical treatment in the 20th century, yet their discovery was an accidental one unrelated to medical research. By analogy, the solution to global warming may come from discoveries in an unrelated area. I wouldn’t bet on it. But it’s a plausible hypothesis, no?