my own private I dunno: résumé | screenplays | fan fiction

scrubbing the Earth’s atmosphere clean, and next Mars’?

| | comments (5)

Now this is exciting. This is forward-thinking. Al Gore and Richard Branson have teamed up to announce a prize of $25 million for whoever comes up with a viable way to scrub CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. At the initiative’s Web site, Virgin Earth, they liken the contest to the one the British government sponsored in the 18th century to solve the longitude problem, which drove innovation in timekeeping and navigation, and by extension, trade and travel. It’s probably not too much of a stretch to say that solving the longitude changed the world in the 18th century in the same way that kicking global warming in the butt will do in the 21st.

(There’s a great book, by Dava Sobel, about the longitude, and a fantastic TV movie based on it, which I’ve reviewed, of course, since it’s so geeky.)

I don’t understand all the global-warming deniers who cry that those of us with our heads out of the sand, who are calling on the human race to change its ways so we can save the only environment we have for ourselves, are full of doom and gloom, want to crash the economy, and generally are a bunch of planetwide party poopers. There’s gonna be a ton of money to made in fixing global warming, from the ground up, from down-and-dirty work like building seawalls to high-tech stuff like alternative energy.

And atmosphere scrubbers. Look, we’re talking terraforming, right here on planet Earth. We have to terraform Earth back to the way it was before we started a global experiment in releasing all the carbon the planet’s been storing up for millions of years. This is the stuff of science fiction. (Like the longitude was -- clocks were like magic, man.) This is probably going to be a vital technology for getting us off this rock. If we’re going to terraform Mars, if it’s even going to be possible, then this is where it starts. Right here. Because of global warming. It’ll be ironic, if we survive as a species, if it turns out to be that cleaning up our own shit is what spurs our moves to other planets. If we can do it here, we can do it on Mars. We can do it on Venus.

Of course, whether it would be right to mess with the pristine environment of another planet is another discussion. (See Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars series for some provocative ideas about the morality of altering alien atmospheres; and hey: it turns out Robinson has an essay you can download from Amazon about “terraforming Earth.”) And whether we can futz with our own environment even more without courting even greater disaster is another question, too. The potential for catastrophe in an atmosphere-scrubbing project seems like it’s not entirely remote -- kinda like how the men who made the first atomic bomb wondered whether they wouldn’t ignite the atmosphere.

That moment, the detonation of the first atom bomb and the worry about what it would do... that was, perhaps, the first instance of anyone thinking about planetary ethics, thinking about how something humans did would impact the planet as a whole. It didn’t stop the A-bomb makers, of course, but it was still a signal moment in human history: the instant invention of a new kind of philosophy. And that’s how we all need to start thinking, on a much bigger scale, and with far more awareness of the interconnected impacts of our actions, than we have before.

But doom-and-gloom? Sheesh, if we make it through this century as a global technological civilization, we may look back at this moment as one of the most exciting moments to be alive: We are transforming ourselves from the people of the United States or the people of China or the people of India into the people of Earth.

At least, I hope we are.

(Technorati tags: , , , )

5 Comments

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the obvious solution for atmosphere scrubbing of CO2 is just to plant many more plants. After all, plants convert carbon dioxide into oxygen; if we can plant enough vegetation we should not only remove the excess CO2, but make the air better to breathe. Can I have my US$25 million now?
Certainly, we need to plant more plants and green-ify cities and for god's sake stop burning down the rainforests, but we're waaay beyond that as a cure-all at this point. We need to come up with a way that speeds up that natural process. But I should have made clear, too, that we cannot wait for this technological magic. We need to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions now. If someone wins that Virgin Earth prize and their technology actually works, that means we may be able to offset some of the very worst results of global warming. We're already committed to a certain level of sea-level rise and temperature rise.
I'm not sure this is a viable solution. Given that reducing levels of atmospheric CO2 will presumably have an effect on climate worldwide, who will decide what the final levels will be. Also, what should the rate of reduction be? Could reducing levels too fast have unforeseen consequences?
Both comments above raise some very good points and it's good to see people are opening their minds to this issue. The problem with the plant theory is that most plants are deciduous and die off in the northern hemisphere during the winter. This causes another exhalation of CO2 and this is where most of the worlds land mass (and thus plant life) resides. Also as plants die and decay the release the gas back in the atmosphere. Soil can be used as a CO2 sink but it is too easily disturbed and cannot hold enough CO2. On the point of rate of reduction and a set level to try to attain, the only thing that a sudden reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere is going to do is stop trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere. If the current biology on the planet that uses CO2 as food were in jeapardy there wouldn't be an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. The plant life would simply expand to take it all in and reach an equilibrium so I don't think you would be starving out any forests. The big dilemma with the competition is not just developing a process to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere but to make it economically viable. There's not much you can do with CO2 once you have it out of the atmosphere except fill fire extinguishers or paintball canisters that will just re-release it into the atmosphere. The fact is current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are just too high and the only reasons we haven't had more extreme changes in climate and even local weather is that our pollution is blocking out a portion of the sun's radiation. That's why I believe it's so much more important to take it out of the atmosphere and sequester it than to do point-source scrubbing at power plants and ethanol plants. For now the pollution is actually keeping the impact of global warming down. Anyway that's my $0.02. Also, MaryAnn, I wanted to know if there is any way you could remove the link to the left for www.co2science.org. From what I've researched they are just a mouthpiece for Exxon-Mobil trying to debunk every fact that we have out there about global warming, climate change and CO2 presence in our atmosphere. Thanks for letting me be heard, and I really enjoyed your website.
I'm not sure which link you're referring to, Haasenpfeffer. If it's in the left column then it's probably in the Google ad, and I don't control the content of that.

Leave a comment


I'm MaryAnn Johanson, writer and editor, and this is my scratch pad, idea-jotter-downer, portfolio and resume, and general hang-out blog.

• film/TV/pop culture critic at FlickFilosopher.com
• contributor, Film.com
• member, Online Film Critics Society
• member, Alliance of Women Film Journalists
• member, International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences

Location: New York City
[email me]

photo by David Speranza

archives

recently at FlickFilosopher.com

Powered by Movable Type 4.1

what I’m watching
(region 1)

what I’m watching
(region 2)

what I’m reading

my book
(Amazon U.S.)

my book
(Amazon U.K.)