Back in March, on the blog ScienceProgress.org, journalist Chris Mooney mused on the future of geoengineering–the active gaming of the earth’s natural systems to avert the effects of climate change. Ideas to accomplish this intervention include shooting sulfate particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays, constructing a humongous mirrored visor in space or bulking up clouds by having ships spray water high into the air. Mooney noted that new papers “by major climate researchers, or policy wonks,” appeared to be popping up everywhere. That led him to the question: Is geoengineering about to tip?
If coverage in the mainstream media is any indication, the answer is “yes.” The AP reported in April that the Obama administration was open to talk about such schemes. A couple of weeks ago, New Scientist reported that the American Meteorological Society had become “the first major scientific body to officially endorse research into geoengineering.” (Reports from both the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society are forthcoming.) In today’s Science Times, John Tierney describes geoengineering as an alternative to policy-based talks, like those of the G8, where several nations make promises, collectively welch on them and then re-congregate a years later to set new goals that no one intends to reach.
If rich European countries with strong green constituencies cannot live up to their own promises to cut carbon, how much hope is there of permanently enforcing tough restrictions in the United States, much less in poor countries like India and China? … By contrast, climate engineering does not require unanimous agreement or steadfast enforcement throughout the world. Instead of relying on politicians’ promises, we might find it simpler to deal directly with Mother Earth’s hot air.
His column seems to at least encourage research into the schemes, but as one of his subjects points out: the smaller the research effort, the longer time period is needed to ascertain its effects. So, we pretty much have to go big or go home.
The take stands in stark contrast to what ran in in the July/August issue of The Atlantic. Graeme Wood’s treatment of the interventions conveyed a mad science-type sentiment about the relative simplicity and cheapness of these solutions. It fervently warned that these technologies would have such a low threshold to implement that a renegade millionaire, he singles out Richard Branson, could take the earth’s climate into his own hands.
This could be ruinous, both because of unexpected effects and because–as was shown in a 2007 study that I reported on for Scientific American–these efforts will only serve to hold climate change at bay. If one of these schemes is undertaken and then paused or stopped, it would be like ending a course of Propecia for preventative hair-loss: just as your hair will quickly abate to its natural state (you with considerably less of it), the effects of climate change will take hold in fast-forward.
The one place where Tierny and Wood seem to agree: Geoengineering could end up as our only option.
Nikhil Swaminathan
Nikhil Swaminathan is a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. He was a reporter at Scientific American and an associate editor at SEED magazine. His work has appeared in both of those publications, as well as Newsweek, The New York Post, The Village Voice, Scientific ...
Read more about Nikhil Swaminathan ->
