Geoengineering an interesting idea
Posted By CATHERINE COLTON
Posted 2 days ago
With all the talk about global warming these days, I've been
looking around for options. By that I mean -- aren't there other ways to solve
this crisis, other than by relying on governments to sort them out for us?
Granted, we're all being convinced that it's our civic duty to clean up
better, to pick up litter, to be more thoughtful about our environment. And
that's all well and good, except it leaves me with the same questions.
It's a real pickle we've gotten ourselves into, and I wonder if we can get
out of it. Will micro-managing our problems by recycling our cans really solve
anything, or are we still on our way to a global catastrophe?
I realize this sounds a bit depressing, but there are scientists all around
the world worrying about this same thing. Let's face it: We're now 10 years past
the Kyoto Protocol, and the world has so far utterly failed to curb greenhouse
emissions. It doesn't take a tyrannosaurus rex to convince me that something
isn't going real well here.
Most environmentalists still maintain that the solution is to keep pushing
the same message over and over again: Cut greenhouse gases.
But a growing list of scientists are now raising some very interesting
(albeit science fiction-ish) possibilities -- they are called "geoengineers."
The principle behind it is simple -- compensate for the increasing greenhouse
effect by reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.
Here's where it gets even more interesting. There are about seven options
they're currently studying. They include:
* Cover up -- putting a reflective cover over the Arctic to avoid the ice cap
melting.
* Carbon-eating trees -- genetically altering trees so that they can suck up
carbon dioxide -- then maybe convert that carbon into some stable form and bury
it -- or convert it into liquid fuels.
* Ocean algae -- these tiny plants absorb carbon dioxide -- why not produce
more, probably by fertilizing the ocean with iron.
* Sulphur dioxide -- use balloons or missiles to spread tonnes
of it into the atmosphere -- these particles would combine with water to create
tiny drops that would reflect sunlight back out into space.
* Small disks -- putting millions of transparent, ultra-thin plastic disks
the size of a garbage can lid into the sky -- they would form a sunshade,
creating a "shadow" that masks the Earth and deflects about 10 per cent of the
sunlight that hits the Earth.
* Huge umbrella -- this isn't a literal umbrella, but rather the notion of
sunscreening devices -- for example, spraying sea water into clouds over the
ocean, or sending small mirrors up into the sky.
* Levitated particles -- shooting clouds of particles to about 100 kilometres
above the Earth, to deflect some radiation away from us.
While geoengineering has long been the province of kooks, it is now entering
mainstream investigation, simply because the environmental disaster awaiting us
is becoming harder to ignore. Even though these are all considered options of
last resort, the fact that they are being considered at all gives one pause --
it seems that this global warming thing is no hoax!
One might suggest that we're already performing a pretty catastrophic
experiment on the Earth, by adding billions of tons of man-made carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere. So maybe these ideas aren't so far out after all.
One has to wonder what lengths we will go to in order to avoid changing our
lifestyle.
While we continue to burn fossil fuels, at a higher and higher cost, we at
the same time try to pick up after ourselves at the park.
It appears that we want to change a bit -- just not enough. We may prefer
that scientists find a grand solution for our problems, so that we can go on
indefinitely damaging our good Earth. Do we really have the intellectual
know-how to understand this planet and to make conscious decisions that might
save it?
The general concensus around the whole notion of geoengineering is that it's
just too early to be talking about it -- a general "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it" malaise.
But there is still that looming fear
about our future.
Geoengineering at least gives us a
feeling that we may have a future "insurance policy" just in case lowering
our carbon output fails.
Even if we take geoengineering seriously, there are many political and
ethical questions to consider.
Who would lead the parade? What countries would pay for it? Which countries
would be "harmed" for the overall good? Are the possible consequences worth
taking the risk? Will geoengineering undermine our current emission-control
efforts? What politician would you trust to make these decisions?
Given all the risks involved in just considering it, why are we even looking
into geoengineering?
Apart from boys' overall obsession with toys, the notion is attracting
attention mainly because the effort to reduce emissions is going so badly.
Although it is common knowledge that our carbon dioxide emissions are
increasing, we still can't even agree on who is complying with Kyoto and who is
not.
Kyoto is viewed as only a first tentative step toward a solution. And even
assuming it's technically possible, it's becoming more and more unlikely that
we'll apply the brakes hard or fast enough.
So that leaves us with geoengineering -- our possible future "escape route"
-- either as a permanent solution, or as something to tide us over until we can
get our emissions under control.
We've gotten ourselves into this mess -- pollution, global warming, depletion
of natural resources, holes in the ozone layer -- the overall question is
whether we can keep doing what we're doing and still avoid a global catastrophe.
That's what's at the heart of the geoengineering movement, and what will
continue to fuel it.
Apart from the fear and controversy that it will no doubt produce, it's still
an option.
Catherine Colton is a local writer, rights advisor, mediator and teacher. She
has a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology, a Certificate in Alternate Dispute
Resolution and a Master of Arts Degree in Interdisciplinary Humanities. Readers
can provide feedback at