Government Overcoming Fear of Geoengineering Taboo

The setup should sound familiar by now: humans all over the planet emitting huge plumes of particles into the atmosphere, the net effect of which causes our planet's climate to slowly change over time. Most people imagine a smokestack spewing CO2 and contributing to the problem of global warming, but for a growing number of climate scientists and policymakers the above scenario is starting to sound like part of the solution. The Washington Post recently published an article on the growing acceptance of geoengineering as a legitimate part of the climate change debate.

Geoengineering is the polar opposite of global warming. Instead of the byproduct of human production causing unintentional change to Earth's climate, geoengineering is the deliberate manipulation of the atmosphere with the express intention of altering Earth's climate. Hopefully, the end result of geoengineering efforts is to counteract our unintentional manipulation of Earth's atmosphere that is the root cause of global warming. Geoengineering efforts generally fit into two categories. The first method of geoengineering is to strip CO2 and other greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere using artificial means. Examples include using artificial trees and seeding the ocean with iron to promote abnormally large algae growths to sequester carbon dioxide. The second category of geoengineering methods are projects aimed at increasing Earth's albedo, or increasing how strongly Earth reflects light from the sun. Earth's albedo can be increased by dispersing reflective particles high into the atmosphere or cloud-seeding by spraying saltwater into the air.

A few things struck me as I read the WaPo article. Primarily, I was shocked how little geoengineering had been discussed and considered by the government. While some progress is being made, the government is just now considering how to study the feasibility of geoengineering. They're issuing reports on how to begin the process of creating reports on whether or not to implement a policy. That's so far removed from actually finding a solution to the problem it can't rightly be called governing at all. From the article you get the impression the the primary stumbling block for actually considering geoengineering has been the fear of lawmakers that it was taboo to suggest "playing god."

The article even suggested that geoengineering research could be quickly and efficiently integrated into existing government research projects, but that administration officials are afraid to do so without political cover because it is so controversial. Scientific research should not governed by the politics of fear and ignorance. Congress and the Executive Branch can't just bury their heads in the sand and hope this whole global warming thing blows over. The government needs to give legitimate consideration into every conceivably viable option. Even if the government doesn't come up with a coherent policy on geoengineering, the private sector will force the issue. Earlier this year, Bill Gates announced he'd allocate $5 million to fund geoengineering research. Projects funded by Mr. Gates include development of cloud-seeding machines by a San Francisco-based research group called Silver Lining. Billionaire philanthropists may be enough to get the ball rolling, but global warming is the type of problem governments exist to solve - a project needing a massive coordination of effort to bring about a solution that's in all of our best interest but beyond any of our individual capacities.

One opponent of geoengineering research, Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute, raises a novel legal question. Namely, could any geoengineering research project satisfy a federal environmental impact statement? Without Congressional intervention, laws aimed at protecting the environment at the local level could hamper future government agency efforts to save the environment on a global scale.