FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Mad Scientists and Geo-Engineering

by BINOY KAMPMARK

We are doomed as a parasitic, rapacious species, and with that air of certain demise, anything is possible.  That, at least, seems to be behind the desperate push for a human effort to reverse, alter and adjust the environment in order to halt the previous effects of alteration and adjustment that have been visited upon the globe.  One thing is bound to happen: a right royal cock-up of stupendous proportions.  If something is broken, it’s bound to get even more so when it comes to “environmental” solutions.

Let us, for a moment, assume the optimist’s position on what has come to be called geo-engineering”, the effort to lessen the impact of climate change by altering the earth’s climate.  This is donning the cap of reflection, an eccentric’s demeanour in attempting to right the crimes committed against the environment.  Research as to whether such dramatic measures of environmental reversal are possible has yet to be done on a grand scale, and is being proposed.  A genteel David Keith of Harvard University in a recent interview (ABC Lateline, Nov 22), suggested that environmentally engineered adjustments were entirely feasible in a scientific sense – that “taboo” had been broken, at least in “polite company”.  The political will, however, would be problematic.  Treaties would have to be negotiated, covenants signed.

The big and strong would have to muster their forces for the effort, with smaller nations obediently following the dictated regime.  Equipment and materials could be mustered from the G20 to implement whatever grand scheme might be posed.  As Keith argues, if one is talking about adding sulphates “or some other engineered particle” to the stratosphere, only a few could actually pull it off.  In precisely doing that, problems of governance arise.

“The big question right now really is: should we do research in the open atmosphere? Should we go outside of the laboratory and begin to actually tinker with the system and learn more about whether this will work or not?”  When a scientist starts tinkering with the ecosystem, it’s time to get jittery.

What it would require would be a “climate emergency” that would propel nations to act.  Terror inspires action, trauma catalyses. A negative, inverted logic to progress, but it’s something that is driving the moment.

There is nothing to say that such manipulations are not themselves problematic. In time, such contributions might precipitate other, even graver crises.  The broken can be more comprehensively destroyed.  Certainly, the efforts of such individuals as Russ George have been noted, with their unpredictable effects, their pompous assertions, and their self-indulgence.  George, dubbed by The New Yorker (Oct 18) as the world’s first “geo-vigilante”, is a fan of ocean fertilization, a geo-engineering technique he thinks is paved with gold – and iron sulphate.  His altruistic credentials tend to come a distant second, which is not in itself a problem, till you discover his somewhat skewed perspectives.   Undeterred, he is convinced that there is enough data to suggest that good news is abound.

Last August, high concentrations of chlorophyll were detected in the Pacific Ocean.  George’s dumping of 200 thousand pounds of iron sulphate was initiated from a fishing boat 200 nautical miles west of the islands of Haida Gwaii.  George is not a fan of scientific rigour.  Business comes first.  He “didn’t write a scientific paper about the implications of fertilizing the Pacific Ocean with iron.  He just went out and did it, with the backing of the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation” (Popular Mechanics, Nov 28).  The rationale, in time, is to improve depleted fish stocks, rather than the environment per se.

This, in itself, poses a danger. The focus here is less on reducing fossil fuel emissions than finding other ways of manipulating the environment to allow us to consume as rapaciously as ever.  We are not being told by the likes of George to consume less and in a different, more efficient way – we are being encouraged to simply find a panacea and reverse environmental shocks.

Dumping near the Galapagos and Canary Islands was not something that the Spanish and Ecuadorean governments were that keen on – George’s vessels were subsequently barred from their ports.  His efforts have been scrutinised with such effect that international moratoria have been passed targeting the use of ocean fertilization (Guardian, Oct 15).  But if this is an example of geo-engineering in action, we have much reason to be worried. Jason Blackstock of the Institute of Science, Innovation and Society at Oxford bandies about one scenario: “[In] Michael Crichton’s novel with little robots taking over and eating the world [Prey], they are things that could be pretty damaging if released into the environment, but we just don’t know”.  Such reasoning is bound to inspire confidence.

Binoy Kampmark was as Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

July 27, 2017
Edward Curtin
The Deep State, Now and Then
Melvin Goodman
The Myth of American Exceptionalism
Nozomi Hayase
From Watergate to Russiagate: the Hidden Scandal of American Power
Kenneth Surin
Come Fly the Unfriendly Skies
Andre Vltchek
Philippines: Western Media is Distorting Reality, People and Army Unite to Battle “ISIS”
Robert Fisk
Out of the Ruins of Aleppo: a Syrian Community Begins to Rebuild
Andrew Moss
What is Adelanto?
Thomas Mountain
Free Speech or Terror TV? Al Jazeera’s Support for ISIS and Al Queda
Robert J. - Byers
Jamboree Travesty
Thomas Knapp
Send in the Clown: Scaramucci Versus the Leakers
Rob Seimetz
Because the Night Belonged to Us in St. Petersburg (Florida)
Paul Cantor
Momentum Not Mojo
Patrick Walker
In Defense of Caitlin Johnstone (Part Two)
July 26, 2017
John W. Whitehead
Policing for Profit: Jeff Sessions & Co.’s Thinly Veiled Plot to Rob Us Blind
Pete Dolack
Trump’s Re-Negotiation Proposal Will Make NAFTA Worse
George Capaccio
“Beauty of Our Weapons” in the War on Yemen
Ramzy Baroud
Fear and Trepidation in Tel Aviv: Is Israel Losing the Syrian War?
John McMurtry
Brexit Counter-Revolution Still in Motion
Ted Rall
The Democrats Are A Lost Cause
Tom Gill
Is Macron Already Faltering?
Ed Kemmick
Empty Charges Erode Trust in Montana Elections
Rev. William Alberts
Fake News? Or Fake Faith?
James Heddle
The Ethics and Politics of Nuclear Waste are Being Tested in Southern California
Binoy Kampmark
Slaying in Minneapolis: Justine Damond, Shooting Cultures and Race
Jeff Berg
Jonesing for Real Change
Jesse Jackson
The ‘Voter Fraud’ Commission Itself is Fraudulent
July 25, 2017
Paul Street
A Suggestion for Bernie: On Crimes Detectable and Not
David W. Pear
Venezuela on the Edge of Civil War
John Grant
Uruguay Tells US Drug War to Take a Hike
Charles Pierson
Like Climate Change? You’ll Love the Langevin Amendment
Linda Ford
Feminism Co-opted
Andrew Stewart
Any Regrets About Not Supporting Clinton Last Summer?
Aidan O'Brien
Painting the Irish Titanic Pink
Rob Seimetz
Attitudes Towards Pets vs Attitudes Towards the Natural World
Medea Benjamin
A Global Movement to Confront Drone Warfare
Norman Solomon
When Barbara Lee Doesn’t Speak for Me
William Hawes
What Divides America From the World (and Each Other)
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Chandra Muzaffar
The Bilateral Relationship that Matters
Binoy Kampmark
John McCain: Cancer as Combatant
July 24, 2017
Patrick Cockburn
A Shameful Silence: Where is the Outrage Over the Slaughter of Civilians in Mosul?
Robert Hunziker
Extremely Nasty Climate Wake-Up
Ron Jacobs
Dylan and Woody: Goin’ Down the Road Feelin’ Bad
Dan Glazebrook
Quantitative Easing: the Most Opaque Transfer of Wealth in History
Ellen Brown
Saving Illinois: Getting More Bang for the State’s Bucks
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail