Ken Caldeira about how his work was misrepresented in SuperFreakonomics —as well as the prospects (and pitfalls) of plans to engineer the planet’s climate system

“[Ken Caldeira] views geoengineering as a last resort, one fraught with risks and unintended consequences. What if, for example, industrialized nations decide to inject heat-reflecting dust into the stratosphere and set off a climate reaction that causes drought and famine in India and China? For this and many other reasons, [Ken] Caldeira argues that sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions is by far the most prudent course.“

Yale Environment 360: I want to start with this little dust-up over SuperFreakonomics. In the book, you are quoted as saying, when it comes to global warming, “Carbon dioxide is not the right villain.” Is that accurate?

Ken Caldeira: That is not accurate. I don’t believe I said anything remotely like that because I believe that we should be outlawing the production of devices that emit carbon dioxide, and I don’t think we can solve this carbon climate problem unless we drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions very soon.

Via Doctor Professor Michael Giberson

UPDATE: Nathan Myhrvold jumps the shark — and jumps ship on Levitt and Dubner (on their blog!) asserting: “Geoengineering is proposed only as a last resort to try to reduce or cope with the even greater harms of global warming! … The point of the chapter in SuperFreakonomics is that geoengineering might be good insurance in case we don’t get global warming under control.” Did he even read the book?

Previously:

- Steve Levitt is attacked for not sticking to the scientific approach.

- Modeling a planet is difficult.

UPDATE: Steve Dubner apologizes.

UPDATE: Ken Caldeira on Levitt and Dubner and Geoengineering

UPDATE: The SuperFreakonomics Global-Warming Fact Quiz

UPDATE: Climate Progress + AP

UPDATE: Harvard Business Review