Technology can undoubtedly make the world a better place. Where, after all, would we be without the wheel, agriculture or email?
Still, there’s almost always a flipside to technological advances. The wheel improved not only travel, but warfare. Agriculture made food more reliable for humans … but also, eventually, helped give rise to confined animal feeding operations, the Gulf of Mexico’s Dead Zone and, for better or worse, the Hardee’s Thickburger. As for email? I have one word for you: Spam.
So when it comes to the fixes being offered for climate change, it’s wise to approach technology warily. Yes, in theory, we could erase our ever-growing greenhouse gas problem if we perfect carbon capture and storage … but that won’t eliminate the environmental degradation wrought by coal mining or the threat of peak oil. And, yes, more nuclear power might reduce our dependence on foreign oil … but it could only increase threats of sabotage or terrorism.
Even more troubling are the global warming “solutions” being offered by fans of geoengineering. This is the idea of seeding the oceans with iron to encourage plankton growth that absorbs carbon dioxide. Of course, too many nutrients in the ocean also cause algal blooms that suck up oxygen, making vast areas unlivable for marine species — again, think the Dead Zone. That’s why it was encouraging this week to hear one international organization come out against geoengineering experiments in the world’s oceans.
The International Maritime Convention (IMO), a United Nations agency with 167 member-states (including the U.S.) makes its primary focus maritime safety. This week, though, members of the IMO’s London Convention, a 1972 treaty on marine pollution, said they also have authority over geoengineering experiments at sea. Their “statement of concern” warned that, given our current knowledge of how ocean fertilization works, large-scale experiments of that nature “are currently not justified.”
Now the convention is not being outright obstructionist when it comes to seeking ways to manage climate change. Earlier this year, for instance, it amended the 1972 treaty to allow geological sequestration of carbon dioxide under the seabed. But its note of caution regarding geoengineering at this point in time makes sense.
Oceans make up nearly three-quarters of our planet’s surface. More than half the world’s people live within 200 kilometers of an ocean coastline, and millions depend daily on the seas for food or livelihood. The oceans hold more than half of all species of life on Earth. And oceans already act naturally as the planet’s largest carbon sink. Before we start messing with another thing nearly as big as our atmosphere — the reason for all these experiments in the first place — let’s put a little more effort into solutions we know to be Earth and life-friendly … like conservation, reduced consumption and less pollution, not more.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Shirley Siluk Gregory
Shirley Siluk Gregory, a transplanted Chicagoan now living in Northwest Florida, represents the progressive half of Green Options' Red, Green and Blue segment. She holds a bachelor's degree in Geological Sciences from Northwestern University but graduated in 1984, just when the market for geologists was flatter than the Florida landscape. Just as well, though: she had little interest in spending her life either in a laboratory or, heaven forbid, an oil field. So, of course, she went into journalism. After extremely low-paying but fun and educational stints at several suburban Chicago weeklies and dailies, Shirley and her then-boyfriend/now-husband Scott found themselves displaced by a media buyout and spending the next several years working as freelancers. Among their credits: The Chicago Tribune, a publication for the manufactured-housing industry, and Web Hosting Magazine, a now-defunct publication that came and went with the dotcom era. Shirley's always been concerned about nature and conservation (and an avid pack-rat, as her family can attest to), but became even more rabidly interested in the environment primarily due to two factors: the growing signs that global warming was real and threatening, and the birth of her son, Noah, in 2003. Suddenly, the prospect of a world that might not be quite as habitable in 40 or 50 years took on a whole new, and personal, meaning. Living where she lives now also helped light the fire of Shirley's environmental awareness: her hometown was severely damaged by Hurricane Ivan in 2004, and beaten up again by Hurricane Dennis in 2005. That, and the fact that she and her family were vacationing in New Orleans until the day before Katrina -- and spent 12 hours driving home for a trip that normally takes 3 -- has made Shirley deeply appreciate how fragile our lifestyles are, and how dependent they are on sound management of natural resources and sustainable living practices. That's why she's become a passionate reader and writer about all things green and sustainable.
One Response to Geoengineering: Quick Fix, or a Way to Go from Bad to Worse?
Click on a tab to select how you'd like to leave your comment
[...] The discovery is especially timely, considering ocean fertilization is one of the topics on the agenda for next month’s United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali. Maybe attendees should take a cue from the London Convention, which earlier this month warned that ocean fertilization experiments “are currently not justified.” [...]