If we judged the severity of global warming by recent news coverage, we might be lulled into thinking the problem has evaporated (or at least cooled). Unfortunately, that is not the case. The planet’s temperature is continuing to rise, and many industrialized countries, including the United States, have been slow to react.

The problem is that the world’s efforts to slow global warming--reduce greenhouse gas emissions--may not be enough to forestall a warmer future. Political inaction may force extreme solutions like geoengineering: large-scale technological interventions in the earth’s climate system. Most earth-cooling proposals are not intended as permanent fixes, but as stop-gap measures to be used until we resolve our CO2-emission issues.

According to UCLA economist Matthew Kahn, “Climate-change adaption comes down to whether you are Mr. Spock or Homer Simpson--proactive logicians or lazy procrastinators.”

Geoengineering interventions have the potential to lessen climate change impacts, but research is needed to determine whether this is true or not. While the ethical high ground may be to preach that we should never interfere with the Earth’s climate, we are obviously interfering with it now. And it’s possible that intelligent counter-interference will reduce potential future damage.

In 2006, geoengineering was rescued from kookdom by Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist. Seeing a potential future calamity, he proposed releasing sulfurous debris into the atmosphere--a sort of artificial volcano--to create a haze that would cool the planet.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), most geoengineering proposals designed to cool the earth can be categorized as either removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, or solar radiation management. The latter would offset temperature increases by reflecting sunlight back from space.

Carbon-removal proposals include:

• ‘Fertilizing’ the ocean with iron to encourage the growth of carbon-capturing phytoplankton and
  
• Building ‘artificial trees’ to absorb carbon dioxide.

In addition to Crutzen’s proposal, several other radiation management options have been proposed:

• Spraying ocean water into the atmosphere to produce sunlight-reflecting clouds and
  
• Launching trillions of reflective disks into the upper atmosphere.

Tinkering with the weather obviously is a very controversial subject, but the current U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, feels that “geoengineering is certainly worth further research.”


One objection to geoengineering is that the earth’s climate is far too complex for us to totally understand. “We’re fiddling with a very complicated system (the earth’s climate),” said John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor. “And it’s very dicey business, because we’re doing it without a complete understanding of how the machinery works.” Flawed data and bad analysis are a considerable concern. But despite the risks, many scientists and policy wonks believe we need to start evaluating geoengineering options now.

In this new field, there are few, if any, national and international agreements to establish the ‘rules of the game’. New agreements and treaties will be required, because the effects of geoengineering will not respect national and international boundaries. It will not be easy to set the global thermostat. And there is reasonable concern that geoengineering technologies could be used as military weapons.

Some argue that geoengineering approaches are similar to losing weight without eating less and exercising more, or avoiding lung cancer without having to stop smoking. Others worry that short-term geoengineering fixes may delay more important permanent solutions.

In the view of British scientist and Gaia theorist James Lovelock, we have two choices: we can live in equilibrium with the planet as hunter-gatherers, or we can live as a very sophisticated high-tech civilization. Since the former is not an option, Lovelock feels the latter is our only path forward. “We have now assumed responsibility for the welfare of the planet. How shall we manage it?”

Who says we can’t do anything about the weather or the climate? Our first priority must be to limit greenhouse gas emissions. However, if such reductions achieve too little, too late, we must consider geoengineering options. And that requires research now.