by Luke Dearden

Created on: May 19, 2009

With the threat of global warming growing, scientists are debating possible techniques to decrease any risk of climate change. The effort to lower pollution levels by developing cleaner technology is a solid path to begin with, but many worry that this will not be enough. Geoengineering, a relatively new idea has been introduced. In simple terms geoengineering is the proposal to intentionally change the Earth's climate to neutralize the effect of global warming. One way to accomplish this is through carbon sequestration. In this process, greenhouse gases are captured from the air and are shoved underground or under the ocean for long-term storage. Solar radiation management is another geoengineering solution intended to reflect sunlight back into space. This could be accomplished by cutting trees down in snowy areas or manipulating the clouds to become more reflective. Many more ideas have been suggested. Although this method has potential to lower the overall temperature, the level of greenhouse gases would not be affected.

For several reason people are concerned that geoengineering would only lower the Earth's temperature, but would not control the greenhouse gases leaving problems like ocean acidification and ozone loss. One idea, studied by Paul Cruzten, a Nobel Prize winner, suggests that large amounts of sulfate aerosol should be repeatedly injected into the stratosphere. This action, similar to a large volcanic eruption, would shield the sunlight and temporarily cool the Earth, but would not help reduce the greenhouse gases. In fact, it could increase the greenhouse gas effect. Carbon emissions could double through climate-altering tactics like this one. Also, if people believe that geoengineering could save the planet, incentive to clean up would disappear. In addition, the money involved to execute geoengineering strategies would extend beyond an expensive level.

Although the negatives of intentional climate change are many, there is a positive. Many scientists say that geoengineering should act as a last hope. If there is nothing that can be done, at least we have a temporary solution. The benefit of geoengineering is simple - it would work. With the ice caps melting and the temperature rising geoengineering may be an answer.

For a last resort or to save Earth as we know it, maybe, but for now, most geoengineering tactics should go no further than a conversation. I have never claimed to be an expert on global warming, but from research and observation I see no panic or catastrophe that requires manipulating the Earth's climate in ways that would increase greenhouse gases. Some methods, like sun reflection by mirrors, that would not add carbon emissions into the atmosphere would cost up to a few trillion dollars. For geoengineering to work properly, it would have to lower the average global temperature to completely compensate for the increased carbon emissions. Is it worth it? If geoengineering was put into practice, we would dig ourselves a deep hole. We would ease the pain, and not fix the problem. In addition, global warming could be a part of a natural cycle in which case Earth will fix itself. Sure, I am all for clean technology because it will benefit us in the future. I am up for carpooling and walking to decrease pollution levels. Geoengineering on the other hand, the consequences in the future may not be what we want.

Learn more about this author, Luke Dearden.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.