<\/p>\n
For a writer, publishing a book is like letting an animal
\nout of a cage—you never know how it will behave in public, whether people
\nwill be charmed by it, or scared by it. Or
\nbored.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This is
\ndoubly true with book about geoengineering—an issue that is volatile, profound,
\nand morally fraught. Is it
\na sci-fi nightmare writ large, or a sensible back-up plan in case our climate
\nspins out of control?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I have my own ideas about all this—and wrote about them in my new book, How <\/p>\n I’d like to talk about all this—both on the road, and here in this blog.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I’d also <\/p>\n But before we get to the assumptions, here’s a <\/p>\n Here’s one assumption I’ll explore in upcoming posts: does taking geoengineering seriously—investing in research, setting up possible governance structures—undercut our collective will to cut greenhouse gas <\/p>\n One of the most commonly expressed <\/p>\n First, let me be blunt and say <\/p>\n That’s why you could just as easily make the case that taking geoengineering seriously might in fact be a really good idea. It might turn out to be the <\/p>\n Maybe if you knew that reckless <\/p>\n What do you think?<\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Sole “Strategic Partner” of landmark geo-engineering conference is Australia’s “dirty coal” state of<\/a><\/p>\n Jeff Goodell: ‘It’s a bad idea for geoengineering to be the equivalent of the Pompeii sex room’<\/a><\/p>\n Adding iron to sea boosts deadly neurotoxin, study finds<\/a><\/p>\n
\nto Cool the Planet<\/a>. But now, as I
\ntravel around the country for the next month, I get to hear your
\nideas. Are you scared by geoengineering? Worried about rogue nations—or rogue billionaires—taking the fate of the
\nplanet into their own hands by launching a geoengineering project? Is geoengineering another way for rich,
\ntechnologically-advanced nations to exert their will over the rest of the
\nworld? Does geoengineering the planet necessarily mean the end of nature as we know it?<\/p>\n
\nlike to test a whole bunch of assumptions that scientists and academics who
\nhave been thinking about geoengineering tend to make, but that might not in fact be true.<\/p>\n
\nquick backgrounder on geoengineering: The British Royal Society defined
\ngeoengineering as “the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth’s
\nclimate system in order to moderate global warming.” We could intervene with technologies that
\nreflect sunlight away from the earth, or with technologies that pull CO2 right out of the air. Sucking out CO2 tends to be slow, expensive,
\nand uncontroversial; reflecting sunlight is fast, cheap, and dangerous.<\/p>\n
\npollution?<\/p>\n
\nfears about geoengineering is that it’s likely to be promoted by Big Coal and
\nBig Oil as a “quick fix”—in other words, we don’t have to change our lives or
\nrebuild our energy infrastructure, we can just spray some sulfur particles in
\nthe air and be done with it.<\/p>\n
\nunequivocally that geoengineering is not a quick fix for global warming. It
\ncould very well cause many more problems than it solves. (Of course, that may not matter. Diet pills often cause more problems than
\nthey solve, but that has not stopped the pharmaceutical industry from turning
\nthem into a multi-billion dollar business.)<\/p>\n
\nclimate equivalent of those crack-up movies they show in driver’s ed classes—the theory being that if you see enough blood splattered on the dashboard, you’ll
\nthink harder about drinking a case of tall boys before climbing behind the
\nwheel.<\/p>\n
\ngeoengineering could shift the Asian monsoons, which hundreds of millions of
\npeople depend on to grow their crops, you’d be more likely to
\nbuy a Nissan Leaf, give up beef, and march on Washington to demand tough
\nclimate legislation.<\/p>\n