By Bart King
In the mid 1990s the Australian government removed feral cats from
Macqaurie Island to protect native seabirds nesting at the World
Heritage site. Sounds like a good idea, right?
But the cats weren’t just killing birds. They were killing
rabbits, too. The rabbits–like the cats–are an invasive species on
the island. Over the next ten years their numbers exploded, devouring
the fragile vegetation upon which the birds rely for cover.
The Parks and Wildlife Service found itself with an estimated $16 million in damages, and the birds were no better off.
This episode demonstrates the risks involved when we tinker with the
earth’s ecosystems. Nonetheless, researchers and politicians are
beginning to consider more seriously the idea of tinkering on a grand
scale in an effort to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. It’s called geoengineering.
Proposals range from fertilizing the ocean with nutrients to stimulate
the absorption of carbon dioxide, to blasting reflective sulfur
aerosols into the stratosphere, to shading the earth from outer space
with the equivalent of a big umbrella.
If you think these theorized solutions sound more like the schemes of
an evil mastermind than the rational work of science, you aren’t alone.
Until recently, the majority of the scientific community dismissed
these ideas out of hand. Researchers readily acknowledge the known and
unknown side effects; however, fears that climate change factors may
soon cross a point of no return-if they haven’t already-are giving
impetus to these radical notions.
Earlier this month, White House science advisor John Holdren
said geoengineering should be considered a last resort, but that it
shouldn’t be taken off the table. Similarly, an international group of
climate scientists meeting in Copenhagen a month ago conducted about a
dozen discussions on different aspects of geoengineering. And Britain’s
University of East Anglia created a new initiative to advance
geoengineering studies after publishing a report assessing the
potential of various schemes.
Technical aspects aside, some critics claim we have no moral right to
manipulate the ecosphere on a large scale. Proponents give the
practical response that humans are already altering the earth through
nearly every aspect of our existence, so why not try to reduce the
effects of climate change? Furthermore, it can be argued that other,
more legitimized responses to climate change, such as reforestation and
biochar, are also geoengineering.
In recent years a few companies have taken flak for their hasty plans to sell carbon offsets
generated by ocean iron fertilization (OIF). The theory behind OIF is
that tons and tons of iron flakes dissolved into the ocean will
stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which then will gobble up more
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere before dying and sinking to the
bottom of the ocean. A study released last month by the Alfred Wegner
Institute found that it doesn’t work so well. The well-fed
phytoplankton increased the food supply for fish, but didn’t carry
significantly more carbon to the ocean depths.
Other materials have been suggested for ocean fertilization,
such as limestone or nitrogen, and it might prove necessary to employ
geoengineering in the future, but certainly not until much more
comprehensive research has been completed. The risks are too high, and
the complex ecosystems we’re fooling with are probably beyond our
ability to fully comprehend. We’re talking about a few more variables
than just cats, birds and rabbits after all.
But even if we were somehow able to spray sun block on the whole
planet, without changing weather patterns, without stunting
photosynthesis worldwide and without carving an even bigger whole in
the ozone layer, we’d still just be taking a short cut around the issue
of emissions, which should be our primary focus.
Geoengineering, like carbon capture and sequestration,
is just another attempt to find a quick fix to a problem that has been
growing for generations. And while we are going to have to use every
bit of our collective intelligence to solve climate change, let’s not
think we can just outsmart it, because the evidence is to the contrary.
++++
Bart King is News Editor of SustainableBusiness.com. This column is available for syndication.
Contact bart@sustainablebusiness.com.
Loading...