More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Giles Slade

Giles Slade

Posted: July 23, 2009 11:48 AM

Geoengineering: Two Worlds for the Price of One

What's Your Reaction:

The challenge of climate change that now confronts mankind has one of two possible outcomes: we will either take a large step up or we will fall down. Humanity's dominion over the earth will end and this ending may well prove definitive or, on the other hand, we may develop a bold, new science that straddles the traditional boundaries of oceanography, meteorology, biology, geology and chemistry.

This new study --some call it geoengineering -- will have as its first object practical climate control and atmospheric management on a planetary level. These are the real stakes and the real terms of 'global warming'. A vivid article called "Re-engineering the Earth" in The Atlantic this month, reduces the themes of this new science to bite-sized chunks for novices like me.

Atlantic readers walk away from Graeme Wood's article knowing it is now financially possible for a single very rich man (or multinational corporation) to alter the meteorological character of our entire planet. All that's required is money and arrogance. In 2009, only money is in short supply.

A variety of experimental techniques -- some poisonous and silly, others alarmingly sensible -- have been invented to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching our planet's surface. I favor the cheap and cheerful option of seeding the oceans' clouds since freshwater will be in short supply in the coming century. In any case, our ability to cool the planet is quickly becoming a vital issue due to the disappearance of polar ice and the acceleration of climate changes.

At the same Wood emphasizes the importance of feasible tricks like artificial trees to vacuum the carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere so that we can restore earth's fecundity in the hope that our grandchildren won't need massive geoengineering projects. I do hope he's right.

What he doesn't mention is that Pandora is already out of her box and the age of geoengineering is upon us. If we resort to global projects to rescue ourselves from the carbon summer, planetary engineering and its companion, ecopoesis, (the introduction of life to lifeless environments) will be part of the human toolbox as we fulfill our goal in the coming decade of reaching Mars with a manned flight. We will find it irresistible to view the barren landscape of Mars as an empty canvas onto which we paint cyanobacteria that will modify its atmosphere and make it more suitable for us.

So we are going to play God again in areas where we should tread very lightly. The promise, of course, is that we will end up with two worlds: our current garbage dump made hospitable after an extensive 'reno,' and a new one to which our children's children might escape if we ever got careless again.

 
The challenge of climate change that now confronts mankind has one of two possible outcomes: we will either take a large step up or we will fall down. Humanity's dominion over the earth will end and t...
The challenge of climate change that now confronts mankind has one of two possible outcomes: we will either take a large step up or we will fall down. Humanity's dominion over the earth will end and t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OldHick
02:53 PM on 07/25/2009
I have to concur with the others who say that seeding clouds and diverse activities to change climate are in the offing. I cannot imagine the effects of this activity on life and environmental quality. Ideas like throwing iron into ocean water frighten me. May as well use the idea that throwing garbage in the water increases the albedo.

The primary problem is not climate, but human made toxins and garbage, being created at three times the previous rate, without much regard for recycling these materials. We are rapidly becoming the garbage planet. There are counties in China filled with E-refuse - from all our computers, and electronic devices. The Chinese peck away at these human-made mountains, trying to extract something of value with hammers.

Bioengineering is probably another major consideration. Controlling fishing - to maintain fish stocks - is of paramount importance. Making oil synthetically, or by cooking materials in existing stratigraphic traps with bacteria - might be quite important to the world.
02:09 PM on 07/24/2009
Bad idea.

All we need to do to solve our energy problems forever is:

Rooftop solar for super cheap 3 cent per KWH electricity,

BioFuels particularly BioChar for fuels, energy, fertilizer and carbon sequestration, super cheap.

1.85 per peak watt! retail!
http://www.atensolar.com/14.html
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
http://terrapretapot.org/
02:01 PM on 07/24/2009
Climate change is a problem.

Trying to control nature is insanity.

http://greenteeth.blog.co.uk/2009/07/24/green-power-debate-milliband-vs-adonis-fuckwittery-of-the-first-order-6580884/
09:59 PM on 07/23/2009
I believe the more correct term for changing a planet is

TERRAFORMING
01:14 PM on 07/24/2009
Well, the idea of "Terraforming" is to make a planet look more like "Terra". What we are doing right now, however, would be more appropriately called "Venusforming", since we are working on a runaway greenhouse effect.

:-)
01:18 PM on 07/26/2009
Don't lose any sleep on it though...
Most of the folks can't seem to get past the moon let alone
considering Venus:)

Remember we seem to be living in a science illiterate universe at the moment:(
03:36 PM on 08/03/2009
Well, okay, but I first encountered that word (to terraform, terraforming) as a pimply adolescent given to reading science fiction late at night. To me it smacks of alternative reality. And then, there's the whole ocean of ink that has been spilled over it.

Ecopoesis is slightly more fanciful, I think, but it sidesteps the debate (which is pretty vicious at times). Because of this it let's you think of the thing in fresh terms starting with, 'what is it we might really be trying to do.' It is art or making (poesis) on a truly grand scale. Some people also call it planetary engineering just as America is sometimes called the United States. I can't see a problem with that. Pick your poison. A lot of people drink Scotch. My father was a scotch drinker who drank 'whiskey' because he didn't want to offend anyone or rule anything out.
07:17 PM on 07/23/2009
Partially blocking the sun may be incredibly cheap, but as the Atlantic article notes, it isn't really a solution.

Dr. R.D. Schuiling is one exponent of a CO2-removal method that is credibly cheap, i.e, not very cheap, but about right for the revenues that governments now take on oil and gas: pulverization and sequestration of olivine or a similar alkaline earth orthosilicate mineral.
01:17 PM on 07/24/2009
I buy the chemical sequestration, at least on its face. However, is it really cheaper than to stop using coal? I mean, we know how to save enormous amounts of energy cheaply and most of the rest can be generated with solar, wind and other renewables at a very reasonable cost. So why move tens of cubic kilometers of dirt through a chemical process, why not just avoid the problem to begin with?
03:43 PM on 07/23/2009
I believe the definition of God is that of a supernatural being able to create an entire universe... and that hardly applies here. All we are doing is to cause a medium mass extinction on a probably rather ordinary planet in a rather large cosmos. And that's hardly divine. It's not even supernatural.

Now, as to whether we should try to counter the already devastating effects our being here has on this planet, that's a valid question. What we can not do is to pretend that "treading lightly" is an option. The only question is if how the harm we are going to cause by trying to counter what we have done already will differ from the harm that we are going to cause by doing nothing different.