\nmoney. That makes it hard to sustain a
\nconversation about geoengineering, given that there is very little sex or money
\ninvolved, and the only violence is likely to be brought on by future climate
\ncatastrophes.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A good volcano, however, does
\nremind people that there are larger forces in the world than Oprah Winfrey.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
First, let me say that
\nEyjafjallajokull, the mountain which erupted in Iceland last week, is a pretty
\nwhimpy volcano. No rolling rivers of
\nlava, very little sulfur dioxide injected into the stratosphere. The volcano was only notable, in fact,
\nbecause the wind currents took the ash right over some of the busiest airports
\nin the world, shutting down air traffic and marooning travelers in airport bars
\naround the world.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mt. Pinatubo, which erupted in the Phillipines in
\n1991—now that was a volcano. Pinatubo injected 20 million tons of sulfur
\n(in the form of sulfur dioxide) into the upper atmosphere and had a global
\nimpact climate (the sulfur particles act as tiny mirrors, reflecting sunlight
\naway from the planet.) In the year after
\nthe eruption, the temperature of the earth dropped by a degree or so. Scientists had previously considered the idea
\nof injecting particles into the stratosphere to cool the planet—in a sense, Mt. Pinatubo
\nwas the mother of all field tests for this idea. And it worked reasonably well.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Eyjafjallajokull is unlikely to have any such global
\nimpact. But perhaps because it exploded
\nin the week leading up to Earth Day, it has inspired a lot of talk about the
\npower and glory of Mother Nature. Who
\ncan look at fiery images of hell and brimstone erupting out of a mountain and
\nnot be impressed by Her Awesomeness? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The volcano also reminded us of the
\nfragile technological web that weaves together modern life. I mean, this little smoker in Iceland nearly
\nstalled the economy of the E.U. Who knew
\nthat a few pounds of ash could bring down an airliner—one of the crowning
\nglories of western technology? A few
\nmonths of continued eruptions, and you could imagine the U.K. turning into a
\nscene right out of the Cormac McCarthy’s The
\nRoad.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/a>But for me, Eyjafjallajokull was metaphor for something else entirely: <\/p>\n Ok, so that’s still a long way from <\/p>\n ——-<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Editor’s note: This is the fourth in a series of posts from Jeff Goodell, author of How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth’s Climate<\/a>. Here’s his first<\/a>, second<\/a>, and third<\/a> posts. And here’s an interview with Goodell about his book<\/a>, and an earlier interview about <\/a>Big Coal<\/a>.<\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Ash and floods threaten Icelanders<\/a><\/p>\n Who gets rich in a geoengineered world?<\/a><\/p>\n What does coal mining have to do with geoengineering?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nbad engineering. When I looked at
\nimages of all that billowing ash, I saw lots of energy being released for no
\n“purpose” whatsoever. I saw gases and
\nparticles dumped into the atmosphere at too low an altitude to have any effect
\non cooling the planet—or even to be useful in the study of how particles can
\ncool the planet. I saw a volcano
\nerupting at an inconvenient place (too close to airline routes), and with not
\nenough power to accomplish much useful or interesting beyond reminding us of
\nthe awe and wonder of nature. Well, what
\nabout nature with a purpose? What about good design?<\/p>\n
\nsex, violence, and money. But perhaps
\nthis is one of the unintended consequences of thinking too long and too hard
\nabout geoengineering—you start to see the whole planet as a big construction
\nproject that can be tweaked and optimized and improved. You start seeing sublime events like the
\neruption of a volcano and you think: Can’t
\nwe humans build a better volcano than that?<\/p>\n