Open Writing

We humans are becoming increasingly concerned with climate change, or global warming. The projected consequences are frightening for the future of all living things on this planet Earth. The creeping hot-in cold places and cold-in hot places are detectable without any instruments beyond our own senses. The increasing rate of rise of the oceans is easily measurable with simple, scientific instruments.

This is all reminiscent of what happened in the not too distant past. A British economist, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), predicted that the continuing increase in the human population would soon outstrip the resources that could be made available to support the total population of the Earth at some level. His warning was widely broadcast and was emblazoned even in text-books. I heard about him and his message when I was a student in high school. How long has it been since you have heard his name mentioned?

I would guess that it has been a long time since then for you, as well. Why don't we hear of Malthus today? It is because there has been a major impact of modern technology on the amount of essential resources available to feed us, especially in the areas of agriculture and animal husbandry. Many of these technological changes have occurred owing to support of research and development by governments. Some of it was developed because of need in wartime.

So here we sit, facing a new catastrophe called global warming. Our governments are making cute talk about reducing the use of fossil fuels, sequestering carbon dioxide beneath the ocean, or in caverns, and some think that planting some trees will help. Meanwhile, developing countries, such as China and India, are rapidly increasing the use of fossil fuels, especially that of coal. Some scientists view the situation as nearly hopeless. I am not saying that these things are worthless, or inadequate. I am suggesting that they might not be done and that they might not be enough.

I suggest that our governments are not doing nearly enough to prevent what many of us believe to be the coming disaster. There are many other possible solutions to get the Earth's heat balance to be more nearly what we consider to be normal. Many of these are optical (they involve light). For example, the atmosphere might be treated to reflect more sunlight. The polar ice caps could be similarly treated. The oceans might be treated to create an increase in microorganisms that absorb carbon dioxide. There could be a drastic reduction in ruminating animals (cows) over the countries of the earth to reduce the amount of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. There could be a drastic reduction in non-essential air travel, a major source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The economic consequences of such measures would be great, even if they could be implemented.

The above are a few possible solutions to the global warming problem. How many of them are being pursued by the collection of world governments? Why not? Perhaps the third rail of global warming is something we shouldn't mention: population control. Well, if global warming continues, that will occur anyway.

I recognize that technical (and political) solutions, such as those above, carry some risk. We might overdo it and end up with global cooling. However, we surely know how to heat things up. That is what we are doing now. Cooling has its own risks. We don't want the hairy mastodons to replace us, do we? On the other hand, they say that the world's population of elephants is becoming dangerously low . . .

All lightness aside, what I am advocating here is serious consideration for exploration, and application, of aggressive and intrusive mechanisms that favor global cooling. If such a process, or processes, can be controlled mankind may be able to overcome the effects of the ticking time bomb that we call global warming.

© Colin Fisher

**

Colin writes for Bonzer! magazine. Please visit www.bonzer.org.au