Turning Air into Rocks?!

Mea Culpa, that was more click bait from this author; but as with my previous post, would you have clicked on a blog post with a title like “physicochemical conversion of heterogeneous gaseous mixture into stable crystalline formation”? Nuff said.

There are several components I consider crucial for a strong start to the day, two of which are a strong cup of coffee and a perusal of the newspaper so as to remain an informed citizen.

I’m naturally inclined toward curiosity in stories related to renewable energy and mitigation of the effects of climate change. As such, a recent post in the New York Times seized my consciousness.

The article, written by Henry Fountain and published by the Times on February 10, 2015, bears a headline that allows little ambiguity as to the direction of the narrative: “Panel Urges More Research on Geoengineering as a Tool Against Climate Change”.

This New York Times piece, and many others like it, are familiar to many, and the gist of these articles can be summarized as follows:

  • Climate change is happening
  • The eventual effects of climate change are going to be devastating
  • Current efforts are not going to be sufficient to address the effects of climate change
  • We need to take drastic action to avoid the worst possible outcomes
  • This drastic action may have negative unintended consequences, but the known negative consequences of climate change are far worse

Caveat: this article quotes US government officials who advocate for more research, I am not implying anything other than government advocacy for research into geoengineering.

Rather than foist my own opinion of this journalism on you, I bring this article to your attention for a much more important reason, summarized by this quote from the article advocating for the study of geoengineering.

In two widely anticipated reports, the [National Academy of Sciences] panel — which was supported by NASA and other federal agencies, including what the reports described as the “U.S. intelligence community” — noted that drastically reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases was by far the best way to mitigate the effects of a warming planet. But the panel, in making the case for more research into geoengineering, said, “It may be prudent to examine additional options for limiting the risks from climate change.

In case that wasn’t clear: groups within the federal government of the United States of America view our current societal trajectory as so calamitous that we should begin studying the potential effects of changing the climate of the entire planet, so as to lessen the catastrophic effects of climate change. This research could be quite necessary in case the work of folks attempting to address this conundrum through high tech, and high ambition plans such as turning atmospheric CO2 into rocks for sequestration doesn’t pan out.

I view the panel’s finding as significant because I plan on living many more decades on this particular planet. I also plan on having children who will hopefully, at the very least, have the option of living on earth for many decades to come.

I am greatly comforted by the knowledge that there are bright, well-intentioned people working to find very high-tech solutions to the problems that are the underlying cause of climate change.

I will also be completely candid with you: I have vacillated, but have not yet developed a strong opinion pro or con regarding geoengineering. If you feel strongly about this issue, please comment on this blog post.

I have the luxury of being able to punt on my opinion of geoengineering, because my day-to-day work chips away at an underlying cause of climate change (dependency on petroleum-based products) while being minimally risky: I plant trees for a living. While inspired and intelligent individuals the world over work through their own chosen potential solutions to climate change, I will continue planting orchards of pongamia trees with TerViva. These orchards will do more than address climate change, they also provide jobs, and return former agricultural land to productivity through new farming crops and techniques.

I sincerely hope we never need the geoengineers to execute their plans, but am glad that intelligent people are thinking through the implications. For the time being I take comfort knowing that TerViva is contributing in it’s own, silvicultural fashion, as indicated by our newest, recently planted acreage in Hawaii that is pictured below.

IMG_8864 - Version 2

One thought on “Turning Air into Rocks?!

  1. Fascinating! So many sides to the issue of course. So what I’m intuiting is that someone is seeking to transmute CO2 into rocks?? If I have that correct, I wonder about the implications and potential storage problem. Reminds me of the saying carrying coals to Newcastle, since the rocks produced from CO2 would most probably go to some rock-like environment to wait things out with other rocks. This is fast getting to be a weird comment, so I want to pause and wait to be corrected. We might want to instead direct our way about coping with global warming consequences and think about the other end of the problem such as factors leading to global warming and start forthwith to alter those factors.
    The blog ought to stir things up and stimulate a discussion at minimum and real change in policy and life style as well. Thanks for the thought provoking blog. Any more in the hopper?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.