Climate: Controlled
Sunday 25 July 2010
by: Jason Mark, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Geoengineering Threatens to Save the Planet from Global Warming
The sky would look white, but the sunsets would be an out-of-this world explosion of reds and oranges. The clouds would have a chrome sheen to them. Giant dirigibles might dot the horizon in a kind of Blade Runner set piece - but at least they'd keep the temperatures in check.
Such scenes are what we could expect to see if, as some of the world's top climatologists are warning, we have to resort to what's called "geoengineering": large-scale manipulation of Earth to counteract global warming. Worried that global political systems aren't responding to changes in the planet's physical systems, some scientists and environmentalists say that we might need to artificially reduce the amount of sunlight striking the globe and/or manipulate plants or the oceans to absorb huge amounts of CO2. Having unintentionally warmed the planet, we may have little choice but to intentionally cool it back down.
Since they sometimes sound like science fiction (a space-based mirror umbrella?), geoengineering schemes were, until recently, relegated to the imaginations of the tinfoil hat crowd. But at least two geoengineering approaches are now generating serious discussion. In a planetary version of pulling down the shades, Stanford climatologist Ken Caldeira has proposed sowing the stratosphere with sulfur dioxide to catalyze water condensation that would reflect sunlight away from the planet. This idea enjoys the advantage of a real-world experiment - the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinutabo in the Philippines, which blew 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and cooled global temperatures by half a degree Celsius. Caldeira and others envision using massive artillery or a fleet of high altitude blimps to inject the sulfur aerosol into the sky.
Another geoengineering strategy - called cloud bleaching - imagines an armada of robotic ships sailing the oceans, equipped with giant fans to kick seawater into the clouds to make them more reflective. This idea has big money behind it. The Times of London reported earlier this month that Bill Gates has invested $300,000 in a firm investigating cloud whitening.
The Gates investment is fueling fears of what's been dubbed a "greenfinger scenario": that is, a maverick, if well-meaning, billionaire who decides to do an end-run around paralyzed governments and start manipulating the globe's climate without the consent of the rest of us. That prospect has scientists, NGOs, and governments scrambling to work out a system for governing geoengineering. In March, scientific ethicists met at Asilomar in California to lay out rules for experimenting with the atmosphere. United Nations officials working under the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Nairobi in mid-May discussed protocols for global climate control. The British Parliament and the US Congress are looking into the issue.
As with any new technology, the tensions surrounding geoengineering come down to the issue of power. Who would decide how, whether, and when to start modifying the entire planet? Or, as Alan Robock, a Rutgers University philosopher with a National Science Foundation grant to investigate geoengineering, put it to me, "Whose hand will be on the thermostat? What if Russia and Canada decide they want it warmer and India wants it cooler? How do you decide those things?"
Let Truthout send our best stories to your inbox every day, for free.
Geopolitical complications aside, there's no question that geoengineering is tempting. With scientists warning that we are on the edge of serious ecosystem disruptions - and our politicians unwilling to respond to the threat - who doesn't want some kind of deus ex machina to swoop in and save us?
But this is a temptation we should resist, because, in the final analysis, geoengineering isn't any solution to the problem of global climate change. It's merely a perpetuation of the same mindset that has led us to this emergency situation. If mitigation (reducing emissions) is the hope of the idealist, and adaptation (preparing for rising waters) is the consolation of the realist, then geo-engineering (call it circumvention) has become the refuge of the cynic. Geoengineering assumes that although we may be able to alter how the planet works, we are incapable of changing the way we run the world.
Geoengineering is a great example of the old Albert Einstein aphorism, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Geoengineering takes a problem, simplifies its cause, and then exaggerates its solution. It's like a Rube Goldberg machine, employing eight or nine steps when one or two would do. Instead of pursuing the elegant solutions - trading in our cars for buses, turning off the coal and turning on the wind - we are going to build a contraption to make the clouds shinier.
This makes geoengineering (the ambivalence of its supporters notwithstanding) human hubris compounded. It's like doubling down on self-regard, a bet that we can save ourselves by divorcing our species from the rest of the planet. Bill McKibben warned about just such a fate in his seminal book The End of Nature when he cautioned that global warming would turn us into a "bubble species."
As soon as we put our hand on the lever controlling the weather, we will be in charge in a way we never have been before, knowing that if for any reason we were to cease overseeing the sunlight, global temperatures would shoot upward again, leading to even worse trouble. The new role will force on us an existential anxiety much like the Cold War "strategy" of mutually assured destruction. If we take control of the sky, we will always be fearful of letting our grip slip from the machines that keep the planet in a semblance of balance.
Even were geoengineering to succeed, it would nonetheless mark a failure of humanity. Resorting to geoengineering would prove that we can't act in concert to address collective problems. Worse, it would transform Earth, our home for all of history, into a trap, a place where we are held captive by our own technology.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!




Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Humanity has already failed.
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 15:53 β radline9 (not verified)Humanity has already failed. The 60 years I've been on this earth has shown me little or no humane progress at all. We have a lot of fancy phones and computers, but I think less humanity. There are still too many wars, poverty, hunger, disease, torture, etc. and it seems to be getting worse, not better. If you are religious, remember God said she would never destroy the earth again. God probably knew that ultimately we were self destructive.
The last episode of the
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 16:03 β K.G. Smith (not verified)The last episode of the Jacobs/Henson show "Dinosaurs," ended with the creatures bringing about their own doom due to over development by the "Wesayso Corporation" and subsequent attempts to reverse the damage they'd done to their own environment.
The show was a sitcom, but the last episode was an exemplar on the hubris of environmental and climate manipulation. It had an excellent message for those who would hear, which must have been about three or four people. HuffPost recently declared the episode one of the biggest downers on TV--bummer, dude. What could possibly go wrong?
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it,
and I feel fine.
World history does not
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 18:00 β Anonymous (not verified)World history does not forebode well about the combination of scientific endeavor and human greed. Atomic research was supposed by used for peace, it ended killing more people, destroyed more creatures and had miscalculated impact on the planet species. Pesticide lead almost to species extinction and may have crushed untold species to oblivion. Petrochemicals are supposed to maintain civilization but has led to the danger of burning the planet and destroying countless habitats and untold species. It seems the politicos and the military industrial complex take away scientists good intentions and use it for concentrating more power in their hands at the expense of common people who end up paying for most of the inventions with money and life. I wonder what calamities are in store for humanity with climate control technologies. We have seen holograms of UFOs projected on the skies around the world, space-ship like objects appearing and disappearing, and many other skulduggery of superpower psychological warfare trying to intimidate each other like small kids with toys. I do not have much optimism after over sixty years of seeing open lies, bait and switches, swindles, murders through organized warfare. Power corrupts. We need a Buddha of 21st century to save humanity from the Dracula of power and money.
grasping at straws is
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 18:18 β Perivail Benway (not verified)grasping at straws is characteristic of what critters do when they see that the party's over... and the collapse of population, the die-off, is the mother of all party endings!
Yes, just(ly) Stop DIGGING,
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 18:24 β Vic Anderson (not verified)Yes, just(ly) Stop DIGGING, instead!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 18:30 β Anonymous (not verified)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te_FOsKL_5Q
The Same Idiots Who
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 19:00 β Environmental Science Major (not verified)The Same Idiots Who Advocated forced sterilization through the water supply and via 'vaccination programs' back around 1970 are now, unfortunately, still being taken seriously. O's chief Science Advisor - John Holdren - who wrote the book EcoScience - has been talking seriously about taking these 'emergency measures' for quite some time now. This is an old playbook - AGW from CO2, GeoEngineering, draconian globalist control measures and taxes - these mad dreams were seized upon by Globalists and we are to swallow them whole now? The same boobs made many, many timetables that have simply not happened anything like they predicted with such great certainty and the predictions still roll on with the same shrill hysteria and denouncing any skeptics as traitors to the Earth itself. There are a lot of skeptics - qualified experts - who keep their mouth shut because they'll lose their jobs overnight if they speak the truth. Bravo to Jason Mark for recognizing the lunacy of GeoEngineering - now go back to work and interview some skeptics so that we can have a balanced view here on AGW (or will T.O. print such an article?) Watch The Great Global Warming Swindle and head for MIT and Stanford to track down some of those guys before you hang your hat on the CO2 theory. And here's a little thought experiment - what will happen to CO2 levels if aerosols or mirrors are put up to block the sun - what will that do to the amount of photosynthesis and carbon sequestration by plants? And another question: Is it okay that Holdren is already 'testing' Aerosol spraying? He has admitted as much a while back.
I watched the video cited by
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 19:09 β K.G. Smith (not verified)I watched the video cited by Anon. Sun, 07/25/2010 - 18:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te_FOsKL_5Q
The G. Edward Griffin in the video is said to be a member of the John Birch Society by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin
K.G.Smith - Note that Dennis
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 19:40 β Bill O'Rights (not verified)K.G.Smith - Note that Dennis Kucinich introduced a bill years ago to ban 'chem-trailing' which is the common term for geoengineering via spraying chemicals from the back of jet planes. Don't reject Griffin's efforts just because he is a Bircher - he also wrote the book "The Creature From Jekyll Island" exposing the Federal Reserve Bank as the creation of a crime syndicate of robber barrons and how it has taken down our economy. I dismissed the chem-trailing issue out of hand as a paranoid fantasy the first time I heard of it and for several years thereafter until recently, and now I am wondering if there might be, unfortunately, some reality to it.
It's insane that we are
Sun, 07/25/2010 - 20:51 β Brian (not verified)It's insane that we are seriously considering geoengineering solutions, the side effects of which could also be catastrophic, because we refuse to deal with the source of global warming - using fossil fuels as our energy source. So many times in the past humans have made things worse by trying to engineer the environment, like when they imported new species in order to bring some benefit, but caused huge problems that still exist.
But insane as it is, we need to work on possible geoengineering solutions, because the governments of most countries, including the two largest GHG emitters (US and China) refuse to reduce their emissions anywhere near the level needed to prevent the worst disasters our species has ever faced. It's better to have studied various options ahead of time than to be forced to use whatever we can manage to get going at the last minute.
I hope all the deniers and all the people with their heads in the sand are happy when we become so desperate that we have to resort to such desperate means, that will almost surely have unwanted side effects, at the very least. This is the future you people are causing for all of us, by denouncing a science you don't understand, or by ignoring a problem you don't want to deal with.
I love these ideologes
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 06:38 β Brad Arnold (not verified)I love these ideologes ruling against geoengineering, it is so amusing. I will guarantee we will geoengineer, because there is really only one other option:
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
Yeah, it is real easy to rule out geoengineering now, with a full stomach and the worst effects of warming yet to materialize.
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
The alternative to
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 08:21 β David (not verified)The alternative to geoengineering is as Lovelock says, and unless that happens, nothing (including geoengineering) will ever save humans and the planet. The unhappy truth is that the human species is a miraculously skilled killing machine. Now our killing has reached epic proportions and we are poised to destroy the entire bioshphere. Not so we can survive, but so we can have leaf blowers, jet skis, too many children, Hummers, television, McMansions, obesity, wars, and other needless insanity. Geoengineering will not work, and neither does capitalism or Americanism. We have a moral choice to make. Right now, our species is choosing to ruin all that's beautiful!
Or, bioremediation -
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 17:07 β Nori (not verified)Or, bioremediation - sprinkle carbon eating microbes over the sooty, polluted landscapes, and reduce the amount of carbon waste on the planet. Bioremediation can clean up the earth too, not just the oil spills.
What most people fail to
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:43 β Brian (not verified)What most people fail to realize is that geoengineering to cool the earth would need to be an ongoing process. Combine that with the long life of CO2 in the atmosphere (many times longer than human civilization has lasted so far), and you can see the problem with looking at that as a solution.
It's really nothing more than a bandaid for a wound that won't heal, a bandaid we'd have to keep changing daily. But how long could we keep that up? The worst effects of climate change, which will come many decades after we finally stop emitting greenhouse gases, will last for about a thousand years. The CO2 level will slowly decline after that, but it will take hundreds of thousands of years for levels to go back to normal.
Do you really think humans will be able to keep massive geoengineering projects going for a thousand years, much less for hundreds of thousands of year? Even if we could, this solution assumes we find a method that does not have bad side effects AND that it is so effective at cooling the planet that it would prevent all the bad effects of climate change, enabling us to continue to feed ourselves and all the other things we need to do to survive.
Putting our hopes in geoengineering is foolish not just because we won't be able to keep it going, not just because there will likely be bad side effects, but also because it gives people the false impression that we can take our time reducing GHG emissions, or even that we don't have to reduce them.
We really need to stop being in such heavy denial about the situation we are in. Even most people who don't deny the basic fact of global warming and the climate changes it is causing are in heavy denial about what needs to be done and how quickly we need to do it. It's very simple. We have to make radical changes to the way we produce energy, massive changes from the system itself down to the individual level. We have to make a lot of progress by 2020 (cutting as much as 45% of our emissions by then), and be virtually finished by 2050 (cutting as much as 95% of our emissions by then). If we don't do this, we will have ruined the future for all of our descendants and for most of the species we haven't already eliminated, and it will take both the climate and biodiversity hundreds of thousands of years to recover. That is the situation. Accept it now, and then help make it happen, any way you can, because we are almost out of time.