In addition to commenting on noteworthy stories and posting my published work, I also plan to use this blog as a space to discuss ongoing research and reporting of mine for stories or projects I’m working on.

Right now, I’m working a piece about geoengineering (also referred to as climate engineering), an environmental concept that, in essence, advocates proactive measures to counteract the effects of climate change and global warming. Instead of relying on curbing carbon emissions, behavior modification and other methods of slowing the onset of climate change, proponents of geoengineering believe that man-made modifications are quickly becoming the only way to effectively stop the destructive effects of climate change.

The concept of engineering the environment has, in fact, been kicked around scientific circles for decades, and it appeared in literature as early as Homer’s The Odyssey. But only recently, as the imminent danger posed by climate change has become more apparent, has geoengineering reentered the discourse in earnest.

I’ll be blogging about geoengineering pretty consistently in the next couple months on here, linking to articles on the topic and posting my own reporting as well. Feel free to contact me with any questions, ideas, concerns — I’d love to hear them.

One of the articles that reignited the debate was Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen’s in the journal Climatic Change in 2006 titled “Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?” (“Albedo” is the extent to which an object reflects light from Sun.)

In the article, Crutzen begins by questioning the effectiveness of actions to slow climate change, and suggests that “artificially enhancing earth’s albedo and thereby cooling climate” might be the only solution to counteracting global warming. He argues that injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere (the atmospheric layer located about 11 to 50 miles above the surface of the earth which includes much of the ozone layer) could be one way to prevent solar radiation from reaching the earth’s surface and thereby lowering surface temperatures.

Interestingly, Crutzen cites the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo, near the Philippines, as an example of sulfate injection into the stratosphere. In the case of Mount Pinatubo, he writes, “enhanced reflection of solar radiation to space by the particles cooled the earth’s surface by 0.5 ˚C in the year following the eruption.” Put simply, then, blasting sulfur into the stratosphere like a volcano could be one way to cool the earth’s surface, going by the example Pinatubo’s eruption.

To fire the sulfate particles into the stratosphere, Crutzen suggests atmospheric balloons, which could carry the particles into the stratosphere, or even artillery guns to fire the sulfur into the sky. Based on figures from the National Academy of Sciences, the cost of his sulfate injection proposal, he estimates, would be around $25 billion.

In addition, he also suggests additional research into the possibility of creating “minor ‘nuclear winter’” scenarios by releasing soot particles into the atmosphere, or launching small reflective balloons or mirrors into the stratosphere to reflect solar radiation away from the earth.

The main critique of Crutzen’s proposals, which I’ll discuss in later posts, is that he discounts the potential environmental harm geoengineering could inflict. Indeed, Crutzen admits in several places throughout his article that further research needs to be done to determine the environmental impact of his proposals.

Nonetheless, Crutzen’s article has reignited a debate on the merits and usefulness of geoengineering once again. Check back later here for more on this topic.

Browse Timeline

• « The Corporate-Military Legacy of Secretary of Education-designate Arne Duncan
• » The illusion of decreasing carbon emissions in the United States

Comments ( 2 )

This idea sounds very interesting, but how feasible is it really? We’ve all read or heard about or seen the devastation of various volcanic eruptions, like Mt. St. Helens and Pompeii. This is another one of those hypothetical things where man thinks he knows better than Nature. So far, that hasn’t really been true.

But, what will it take? And who will pay for the mess that will inevitably come from the unforseen cleanup from a stimulated eruption? Who will study the side-effects from the sulfur release or the artificial global cooling?

Yuliya M added these pithy words on Jan 26 09 at 7:49 AM

Add a Comment