The Federal Government just sunk a ton of cash into research on geoengineering climate change. They say it’s to save the planet, but few environmentalists are convinced.

Many will remember 2013 as the year freedom ended in America. Wemfinally had to come to terms with the fact that our lives are being tracked and recorded by the NSA, Google, and pretty much everyone else. In light of new laws that allow anyone to be “detained” for undisclosed reasons, the fact that we’ve lost all rights to privacy is pretty terrifying. Given the level of interest in Miley Cyrus dance moves, however, no one seems to be too bothered that their constitutional rights have been flushed down the toilet. But now it’s going way beyond phone calls.

Over the summer, the feds quietly announced a project that hopes to discover new methods for mitigating climate change. The 21-month, $630,000 project will be run by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) with funding coming from the CIA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA. According to Mother Jones the NAS funded two previous workshops on geoengineering, but this is the first time the CIA has participated.

Don’t get too excited, however.  It’s not an initiative to speed the shift from fossil fuels or build disaster-proof cities. It’s a scientific study  that will investigate whether humans could use geoengineering to alter Earth’s environment and stop climate change.

For those not familiar, geoengineering is “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate.” If you think about it, the idea of geoengineering climate is nothing new: we’ve been altering the planet’s ecosystems to suit our desires for centuries. What’s new are the technologies and the goals.

“Geoengineering falls into two categories: solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal,” explains David Suzuki in a guest post for DeSmog Blog. “The former involves reflecting solar radiation back into space. The latter is aimed at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it.”

Ideas for geoengineering climate change solutions range from cloud-seeding to fertilizing the ocean with iron, but all are controversial because we have no idea what the unintended consequences might be.

According to the CIA project’s official description, a committee of experts will “conduct a technical evaluation of a limited number of proposed geoengineering techniques, including examples of both solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal techniques, and comment generally on the potential impacts of deploying these technologies, including possible environmental, economic, and national security concerns.”

There it is at the end–“national security concerns.” In a world where governments are positioning themselves to control as much of what we do and say as possible, the idea of the CIA using the weather like a weapon sends shivers down my spine. But maybe that’s just me.

A close second concern would be the fact that geoengineering climate change fails to address the root cause of the problem. It’s like taking an aspirin to alleviate the pain of a nail sticking through the bottom of your foot. You might get a few hours of relief, but ultimately, nothing will change until you yank that sucker out.

The negative effects of climate change are a direct result of our unchecked consumption of fossil fuels. Period. The consequences will continue until we stop belching filth into the atmosphere, and even then, it will take generations to reverse the damage.

Let’s leave the poor planet alone, haven’t we done enough already? Instead of pouring $630,000 into madcap ideas that will probably break more than they fix, why not invest in renewable energy technologies that will actually begin to fix the problem?

Maybe it’s because doing so would force us to admit that fossil fuels (and the politicians who love them) have to go. Maybe it’s because a safe affordable power plant on your roof makes you harder to control. Just sayin’.

Related on Ecosalon:

Geoengineering: Giving The Earth A Push

Attention Skeptics: Climate Change Is Already Killing Fish & Polar Bears

Image: saschapohflepp

The post CIA Spends $630K On Geoengineering Climate Change, But Why? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Though the it’s-too-late set seems to be growing, most scientists agree that when it comes to human-induced climate change, there are solutions. Most of these solutions are ambitious. Some, in fact, might be too ambitious – and perhaps too dangerous on a number of fronts.

Geoengineering is exactly what it says it is – engineering our geo. If you want to get a little more technical, here’s a definition from the National Academy of Sciences:  “Options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.”

This example has recently been discussed quite a bit: When the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it released about 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and decreased world temperatures by an average of half a degree. That’s a big drop and the kind of climate change that, as a global population, we might be very interested in. So here’s the geoengineering news: We now have the technology to get the same job done – without a volcano – using airplanes or blimps to inject sulfur dioxide directly into the stratosphere.

But wait, there’s more. If playing Volcano God doesn’t do it for you, how about:

• Spraying massive amounts of seawater mist at low-lying clouds to reflect sunlight.
• Launching sunlight-reflecting mirrors into the Earth’s orbit.
• Seeding the ocean with iron to boost phytoplankton growth. (“Plankton release a chemical called dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere which helps cloud droplets form. More droplets mean whiter clouds that bounce more solar energy away from Earth,” says New Scientist.)

In fact, there are all kinds of ways we can take the reins of our climate situation. Are they good ways to combat global warming? Maybe, but hey, perhaps it’s a good idea to set up some rules here.

Ever since the concept of geoengineering came on the scene, excitement around the scientific possibilities has been tempered by political and ethical (perhaps even more than practical) considerations at every turn. For example, with the potentially global impact of any effort, who gets to play? Anyone who wants to (read: has an interest and can afford to)? What would prevent the abuse of such high-impact, “planet-hacking” technologies? Say an arid country would like to wet its whistle a bit? What’s to stop it from doing a little more than praying for rain? Of course, there’s also the little problem of a hostile nation wanting to flood or dry out an adversary.

Enter the United Nations. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recently closed its 10th biennial meeting in Nagoya, Japan, with the implementation of “a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments.”

This makes sense – making sure that geoengineering science is explored in the global light of day, with science and ethics awareness checks as research moves forward. Good intentions aside, the weaponization potential alone requires every effort to make sure the wrong people don’t get their ill-willed fingers on any climate triggers. As one astute writer at the guardian.co.uk recently put it, the current world of geoengineering “is eerily reminiscent of the race to develop nuclear weapons in the 1940s.”

But let’s look at one more angle on this debate. Are these scientifically grand and impressive approaches to global warming just easy (for rocket scientists, anyway) answers to a complicated problem? Might “the promise” of geoengineering encourage a form of laziness, giving us the illusion that we’re relieved of the burden we must ultimately carry if we’re going to better manage how we manage our world?

If we’re going to take on human-induced climate change, we’re going to have to do some heavy lifting. We’re going to have to make some fundamental changes to how we view, consume and burn energy. We’re going to have to quickly evolve our thinking regarding sustainability and obsolescence and resource usage. We going to have reinvent our relationship with the Earth and no amount of New Big Science is going to end-run this fact.

Image: ewen and donabel

The post The Rise of Geoengineering: Smart? Safe? Too Easy? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Climate control freaks?

Geoengineering is exactly what it says it is – engineering our geo. But here’s a cooler definition from the National Academy of Sciences:  “Options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.” Consider this: when Mt. Pinatubo, in the Philippines erupted in 1991, its bad-ass belch of some 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide dropped world temperatures by an average of half a degree. Scientists now have the technology get the same job done without any help from the volcano gods; they can use airplanes to inject sulfur dioxide right into the stratosphere. One way to combat global warming? Maybe, but hey, maybe it’s a good idea to set up some rules here before we get all crazy, no?

Who’s upstairs?

There are lots of breakthroughs these days regarding our knowledge of what’s happening at the helm of our own personal wheelhouses. While we’re always going on about how we should all be thinking, buying and even voting green, how much control do we really have as to where our minds and dollars go? What we’re getting here is, do you know what the “neuromarkerters” are up to these daze? Do you know the role they played in this month’s election? Stay tuned in (if you can) for tales about who’s trying to take control of your controls.

Insides Out

While we’re looking at what’s under the hood, how about them stem cells? We’re all about sustainability here, right, and what could be more sustaining than potentially life-giving research opportunities? Well it depends on who you ask. What’s happening on the biotech ground – from university and corporate labs to the halls of the Hill – affect our current and future quality of life every day, and the latest rules and regs and funding issues are playing a major role in how we approach these issues as a society. Who are the players on these issues and what do they have cookin’ up in their petri dishes?

It’s in the air

Blown away by all the wind-generated energy hubbub? Swept up by the grand promises while suffering though the doldrums of slow-to-no progress? Well, we are too. With plans for massive “farming” projects everywhere from the Great Plains to off our coastlines, there are a lot of questions to explore about what’s the right way to go about an effective wind grabbing. What are the costs? What are the potential rewards? Who’s primed to make coin on these deals that could make large-scale engineering efforts like the Hoover Dam seem like specs in our collective rear view mirror? And as a nation, are we interested in taking the innovation lead?

What’s happening?

Save the date! Our global(ish) eco-social is coming up this month in sunny Cancun, Mexico, where the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is guaranteed to entertain. And who better to cover the red carpet happenings than EcoSalon? The background from the UN is this: “Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable. More recently, a number of nations approved an addition to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol, which has more powerful (and legally binding) measures.” Here’s the subtext for this 16th meeting: Might a new binding treaty emerge? Don’t hold you breath – or maybe hold it. In any case, we’ll be covering the event! (In fact, we should send a reporter, right? Um, editor at ecosalon dot com. Tell her Scott sent you.)

OMG! It’s getting warmer in here!

If you thought we were going to leave Rep. Shimkus alone (note our shot across the bow last week), you’re mistaken. Not that we’re not saying there’s anything wrong with a Godly approach to life, but if he is speaking to us at all, he’s probably saying “knock it off with the greenhouse gases!” Anyway, it’s not just Shimkus we’re worried about. We’ll be keeping our eye on the climate control-busting shenanigans class of 2011. No quarter here. That’s a promise.

Duck and cover

Picking up on the Shimkus wave, we’re here to remind you that the War on Science is alive and well – and well-funded. Science denial seems to reaching a crescendo these days, whether deniers are taking on Einstein or climate change, the span between what science is telling us and what we believe seems to be growing. What are the facts on this issue? Does anyone care? Who wants you not to know better?

Is this thing (still) on?

Do I really need a new laptop already? It seems like I just bought one. Well, surprise, surprise, my breakdown might have been planned to go down well before my box was boxed. Planned obsolescence is a story not only about marketing and corporate greed, but about product footprints, waste and and throwaway culture. As our pal Brian Clark Howard recently said over at The Daily Green, “The issue has big environmental implications, because our insatiable appetite for stuff drives carbon emissions and pollution.” Quick, before the warranty expires, let’s take a look at this issues, and why it’s not necessarily an all-bad phenomenon.

Okay, so there’s a little EcoSalon skin. Hot huh? We missing anything? Thoughts? Ramblings? Send us a note at contact at ecosalon dot com.

Images: World Economic Forum, flydime, Liberal Democrats, James & Vilija, , phault
World Economic Forum, danielfoster437, woodleywonderworks, m.gifford

The post Not Quite 10 Stories (Okay, 8) We’ve Got Our Eyes On appeared first on EcoSalon.

No cloud above, no earth below, A universe of sky and snow. – John Greenleaf Whittier

Here’s how I like to think it happened. Bill Gates is sat at his desk one day, sipping Mountain Dew while grappling with some tricky Windows-based conundrum. A shadow falls across his very expensive notepad: the sun’s gone in. Bill curses, throws his very expensive pen at the wall, and within ten minutes a thousand Microsoft scientists have their orders – “Bill wants the sky brighter!”

I’m being daft, of course: cloud whitening is a well-established part of the controversial scientific body of theory know as geoengineering. The principle is simple. If you dump vaporized water into the clouds, they become fluffier and whiter – i.e., they cover more sky and they reflect more light, blocking incoming sunlight and (in theory) helping fight global warming. However, it’s never actually been tried – until now. As The Guardian reports, the Gates-funded research group Silver Lining is building machines to spray misted seawater into clouds covering a 10,000 kilometer square area of sea, either from ships or wind-powered yachts.

And although it sounds like a Kate Bush video, it’s going to happen if Bill gets his way, that is. Critics point to the fact that we’re deliberately tinkering with a meteorological system we barely understand and are often poorly equipped to defend ourselves against when it turns nasty, which it is more and more frequently). With all the damage we’ve done to the world’s lands and seas, should the skies be made sacrosanct?

Images: francesco sqroi and Michel Filion

The post Bleaching the Sky: Not Very Bright? appeared first on EcoSalon.

As the climate changes, so will the habitats of flora and fauna – changing far faster than natural adaptation can deal with. Mass extinctions are a very real threat. What to do?

One option on the table is a truly startling display of geoengineering. This week, scientists at Britain’s University of York (my home city, and a hotbed of eco-innovation at the moment) have just released the results of an experiment to move a species of butterfly to the limits of its traditional temperature “comfort zone”, to be encouraged to embrace a new habitat. It did – and it’s thriving.

The technique is called Assisted Colonization – and the implications are immense. Entire populations could, at great expense, be moved out of one habitat to another, staying one step ahead of global warming and continuing to thrive in the wild. Only the species most at risk would be targeted for such drastic measures, such as small plant-life relying on the wind to migrate painfully slowly (via seed dispersal).

It’s tinkering with Nature on an epic scale, and critics are going to find it easy to sling mud. We still understand only a fraction of the complex interdependencies within an ecosystem. The danger – take away a supporting beam (ie. a creature that is a vital link in the food chain, or necessary to propagate other species, such as the way bees pollinate apple trees), and the whole structure crashes down.

Are the risks worth the rewards?

Image: Paraflyer

The post Have Species, Will Travel: Reasonable or Reckless? appeared first on EcoSalon.