Can We Geoengineer Our Climate Problems Away?

In October, a team of British researches will initiate the preliminary phase of a geoengineering project that they hope will help in the development of planet-scale techniques to bring the earth’s climate under control. But will such plans succeed? And should experiments meddling with our atmosphere even be allowed?

In recent years, geoengineering – the large-scale and intentional manipulation of the earth’s climate in order to stop global warming – has migrated from the whacko fringes of the scientific world to establish itself as the respectable discipline of reputable scientists and research institutions.

Some of the suggestions that have been proposed to affect global cooling include:

• Painting large areas of “unused” land with reflective paint to increase the planet’s albedo;

• “Planting” hundreds of thousands of artificial trees capable of scrubbing CO2 out of the air;

• Installing orbiting mirrors in space – either a few gigantic ones or millions of tiny ones; and

• Deploying a fleet of ocean-going cloud-making machines.

The British scientists plan to suspend a kilometre-long hose in the air using a balloon. They will then attempt to pump water up the pipe and spray it into the atmosphere. In future, this sort of technology could be used to disperse fine droplets of liquid sulphur compounds in order to create a reflective blanket that would mimic the effects of a volcanic eruption in blocking sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface.

Sometimes results are unexpected

There have been field trials of several other geoengineering schemes. In 2009 Russian scientists sprayed a small amount of sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere reporting a 1 to 10% reduction in solar radiation. In the same year, an Indian-German expedition “fertilised” 300 square kilometres of the Southern Atlantic with tonnes of dissolved iron. A bloom of phytoplankton resulted, but instead of sinking and trapping absorbed CO2 on the seafloor as expected, the plankton was eaten by a voracious swarm of tiny crustaceans, keeping the carbon in circulation through the food chain rather than removing it from the system.

Proponents of geoengineering experiments argue that they may turn out to be our only emergency fall-back options if and when climate change starts running out of control. Personally, I’m sceptical, particularly since there are a number of questions regarding the long-term efficiency and cost-effectiveness of geoengineering.

But more worryingly, there are several potentially detrimental and unpredictable side-effects. Sulphate particles injected into the upper atmosphere, for instance, could deplete the vital ozone layer and cause pollution, and while some geo-engineered clouds may help to cool the planet, others may actually trap more heat in the atmosphere.

Ultimately, all geoengineering interventions address the symptoms instead of the causes of climate change. Solving the problem is increasingly a political issue: we have the technological capacity to very drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and halt climate change by curing ourselves of our fossil fuel addiction. But do the powers that be have the political will to make it a reality?

What do you think: is geoengineering our last resort in the battle against global warming? Or is it a set of dangerous technologies that will waste money and do more damage than good by meddling with an exceedingly complex and unpredictable natural system?

——
Andreas is a book shop manager and freelance writer in Cape Town, South Africa. Follow him on Twitter: @Andreas_Spath

Photo from: Stock.Xchng

Read more:

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Grace A.

6:18AM PST on Jan 18, 2012

Rafts covered with NASA space blankets to make them reflect more light could be useful as rest stops for polar bears, seals, walruses, penguins, etc. whether they buy any more time on climate change or not.

send a green star

Rocio J.

4:15AM PST on Jan 18, 2012

Geo-engineering ?? I don´t know. But it is worth to try. We´re killing our planet anyway. There are so many threads that are here on earth: polution, extinguishing species, subventioning hazardous poluting industries .... The question is: Could Geo-engineering harm ourselved with things we still don´t understand ? Do we have enough knowledge ??

Robert O.

6:01PM PDT on Sep 20, 2011

Geo-engineering is not necessary. It is thrilling to see how Nature rebounds as soon as we stop actively thwarting it. Unfortunately, like other overpopulating species, we humans exert a constant pressure on our environment. Nature is persistent, and we spend our days beating it back.

The good news is that traditional fertility rates can plummet in a single generation, and over time the human race can achieve a more sustainable balance through natural attrition. Most of us need to move towards simpler lives, more in harmony with the land around us. We can do it with style and humor, and be the better for it.

We live on Eden, and we have no right to look for other planets to plunder.

Question: Why is a dramatic influx of tiny crustaceans bad? If you can seed the oceans and simply boost the bottom of the food chain... That seems like a win-win-win solution.

Roger B.

3:28PM PDT on Sep 19, 2011

Oh, Bob, you almost nailed me. None of the evidence that you presented proves or even is evidence for ***human caused*** global warming. I believe that global warming may very well be happening. It happens about 1/2 the time. Then we have global cooling. Up and down it goes. We have had 10,000 years of unusual stability. I guess God is saying that the party is over; no more molly coddling the human race.

3:26PM PDT on Sep 19, 2011

Bob, funny you should mention evolution. It too is an unproved theory. And to say that it is as close to a fact as one can get, what happened to gravity? The proof of evolution will happen when we scour an island clean, plant some animals there, and come back in a couple hundred thousand years to see if species evolved that CANNOT reproduce with other species in the world. [Nothing here that I say is religious based; it is entirely philosophically based.] I believe in evolution; I believe that it fits the data perfectly; I believe that it makes perfect sense. I do not believe that is a fact in the sense the dropping two cannon balls from the tower is a fact, reproducible, easily observed. I believe in evolution way more than I believe in the Big Bang. The evidence for the Big Bang is very slim, and with Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the Big Bang could be in trouble. Man made global warming, even less.

Bob R.

3:14PM PDT on Sep 19, 2011

Roger, my friend, there are even more scientists who don't believe in evolution (which is not a theory, but as close to fact as science ever allows).
All I can say is wait a while.
I assume you live in the USA. Already, some Americans have been devastated by climate change. But compared to many other areas of the world, you lot are doing well for the moment.
The way climate change works is by worsening existing weather fluctuations.
Have you noticed a hurricane hit New York? Tornadoes in Massachusetts?
Winter blizzards will get worse and worse as the temperature differential between the N pole and the Gulf of Mexico increases. Storms of unprecedented severity will do things like flood half of Boston.
In fact, the word "unprecedented" has been applied many times in the past few years.
Unprecedented floods in Pakistan destroyed the homes of over 20 million people.
Unprecedented heat and fires have devastated the Russian wheat fields.
Unprecedented wildfires struck Victoria, Australia.
Unprecedented drought is torturing east Africa.
And so on.
:)
Bob

Morgana W.

10:56AM PDT on Sep 19, 2011

Geoengineering is an abomination and will do NOTHING to save this world. Let's just remember all the other times we have interfered with Nature to solve what we perceived to be an imbalance - we just created bigger problems. NO GEOENGINEERING. Let the original engineer do the work, and all we have to do is to "do no harm".

7:54AM PDT on Sep 19, 2011

Bob, as soon as I get a fallacy, I stop reading and respond: "the opinion of all the experts". That ain't so. If you had said, "the opinion of all the experts who get jobs, prestige, grants, and the opportunity to publish", I might have kept reading. Here: http://www.petitionproject.org/ you will find over 31,000 scientists who disagree, and many are climate scientists, physicists, meteorologists, etc.

8:29PM PDT on Sep 18, 2011

Roger, your optimism is touching.
Do you have insurance (house, contents, car, life, whatever)?
If all goes well, the insurance premium is wasted.
All the same, people do not assume all will go well, especially when a lot of evidence, and the opinion of all the experts, indicates otherwise.
Maybe you need to take out insurance against climate change. That's what I am offering.
In any case, you have ignored the main brunt of my message, and that of several others who have posted.
Climate change is not a problem but one symptom. There are other symptoms.
Why did China colonize Tibet? Because it is the source of all the major rivers that flow to China. Water will be a cause of wars in the near future. I predicted this in 1972. It will happen in several areas of the world.
Do you eat marine fish? Study the change of commercial species over the past 50 years. It will be a very educational experience for you. We are destroying the ecosystem of all the oceans of the world for food.
Look up the proportion of fertile topsoil lost to desertification each year. That is a direct consequence of human land use.
While you're at it, look up the farmland replaced by urban growth too.
So, forget about climate change. Examine the other symptoms of greed * breed.
:)
Bob

7:40PM PDT on Sep 18, 2011

Bob, I say that we have hundred if not millions of years. As soon as it gets dark around here, the temperature drops like a large, shiny piece of lead. The oceans are going to take a much longer time, perhaps a year or so, but that longer time illustrates why I say that CO2 is very unimportant and H2O is very important. I still think that your panic is psychologically based. I follow stuff just as much as you do, and I am not worried in the slightest.