Global warming solutions that won't break the bank

Global warming (GW) has become a crusade for environmentalists. Although many still warn against threats such as pollution, rainforest loss, and biodiversity reduction, most of the attention--and dire warnings--now center around GW and in particular, CO₂ emissions. The growing scientific consensus seems to be that GW is a real phenomenon, though there is still debate over how much (if any) is of human origin.

For those who acknowledge GW, and especially humanity's involvement (or culpability) in it, the next obvious question becomes: What do we do about it? To this, most responses have polarized into one of two camps. The first, claims that either GW is not significantly anthropogenic, or that GW might actually be good for us, but that either way it's not really a concern we need do anything about. The other side, claims that the solution is both simple, and singular: We need to significantly reduce CO₂ emissions, and we do that by significantly reducing energy consumption. (Or make major changes in how that energy is generated.)

To enact CO₂ reductions large enough to have a meaningful effect on GW will require major changes in energy generation and/or consumption--and accordingly, will have major costs and major negative effects on economies and standards of living. The Kyoto Protocol alone, which even its proponents admit will have negligible effects on global climate (it is intended as a starting point toward more draconian and costly measures), will cost the world hundreds of billions of dollars annually and have a measurable dampening effect on economies. Indeed, several of its most supportive signatory nations are now saying they will probably not be able to reach its target emission levels by the deadline date.

This dichotomy of actions--do nothing, or do major damage to the world's economies--seems to be a self-polarizing phenomenon. Both sides refuse to give any consideration to the other, and both sides also see no point to any kind of mid-way compromise. A half-strength Kyoto Protocol, for instance, would be unacceptable to both sides. The economists (for lack of a better term; I don't want to use "anti-environmentalists," as that is a loaded term and inaccurate) would point out that it would still fail a cost/benefit analysis, while the enviros would say that it doesn't go far enough to be meaningful. So, both sides seem stuck in their respective camps.

There may be other solutions to the all-or-nothing tug of war, though, which have the potential to make both sides happy. Pollution credits are one solution with potential, though many enviros still get severe allergic reactions to anything having to do with "market-based." Some have also tried to bridge the gap between ecology and economy, with mixed results. This article, then, accomplishes a major feat: it may offer a workable solution to GW with measurable results, while also actually being minimally destructive towards economies.

The solution is not so much a specific course of action as it is a general concept: GW mitigation. The idea is that rather than cutting off GW at its (most significant) source, thus attempting to "save the planet" at the expense of human well-being, we should attempt to use a variety of cheap yet highly-effective forms of geo-engineering. Geo-engineering might be described as "terraforming lite." This idea recognizes that it simply isn't feasable to roll back the clock on human economic development.

To be sure, there will be some knee-jerk opposition to this from enviros who view any human activity as destructive. Such enviros also tend to view humanity as a figurative, or literal, cancer upon the Earth. I'm not sure how widespread such anti-human sentiments are in the enviro movement, but if enviro postings on Yahoo science message boards are an accurate sampling, such views are certainly not merely in the fringe. (I would post links to some specific examples, but Yahoo message board posts are subject to rapid link-rot.)

Still, if enviros are serious about reducing mankind's effects on the climate, this is something they should seriously consider. And unlike actions like the Kyoto Protocol which need global compliance (and thus global agreement), GW mitigation can be done regionally. The exact technique used, in fact, depends on the region where it's used.

Some examples of GW mitigation include increasing Earth's albedo to reflect more sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed as heat, and ways of removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. Methods of the former include slighly altering the composition of concrete to make it doubly reflective, making rooftops white, increasing the presence of sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere (fired directly from naval guns, or included in remote sulfur-burning operations), and/or adjusting jets to burn a more fuel-rich mixture, thus increasing cloud cover. To remove significant quantities of CO₂ from the air cheaply, we can seed the oceans with iron (thus greatly increasing phytoplankton production), and/or plant many more forests in currently unusable or marginally-usable wilderness or farmlands.

GW mitigation has several big advantages going for it. The first is that for most of these techniques, "just a little bit'll do ya." They have the promise of being incredibly effective.

Another advantage is that, especially compared to Kyoto and other onerous enviro regs, these techniques are a comparative bargain. Most are in the range of a few tens of billions of dollars, about a tenth the cost to achieve similar results using Kyoto-style CO₂ reductions. This would deflate much of the opposition from concerns over economic harm.

And a big appeasement for "don't-mess-with-nature" enviros, is that most of these techniques are relatively short-term in their effects. If further research shows one of these techniques (e.g. oceanic iron-seeding) to be ineffective or even harmful, they can be stopped, and their effects would dissipate away in days or weeks.

That last point may be something of a weakness for the concept, though. The prevailing winds of politics can be fickle, and although gov't bureaucracies tend to be immortal, the actual programs they administer are not. Still, many of the techniques outlined in the article could conceivably be carried out by NGO's and other grassroots orgs. (The Nature Conservancy, for instance, has been very successful at buying up land for conservation purposes.)

So, GW mitigation can appeal to both sides, those who put the economy at a higher priority than the environment, and those who value the environment above any economic concerns. It is effective, technically feasable, safe to try, scalable, and economically feasable. This may just be the solution both side have been looking for.

And finally, as a futurist, I can't help but hope that GW mitigation could increase our knowledge and expertise in eventual full-scale terraforming, so that one day we may be able to transform Mars into a planet full of life. The promise of GW mitigation is enormous, the risks few. We just need to give it a try.