Dooms day machine put to good use?

In the article “The Doomsday Machine and the Race to Save the World: Geoengineering Emerges as Plan B at the 11th Hour” (October 29th, 2010) Jeff Conant makes many claims against geoengineering. Such claims are that it is only to make money, another is that it ignores the source of the problem and therefore the problem it’s self. A big flaw in Conant’s argument is that he never clearly states if he is for or against geoengineering. Most of his arguments go against it, however there are some contradicting arguments such as Ken Caldeira trying to disprove Dr. Lowell Wood’s theory to use nuclear fission to cool the earth but only being able to prove its potential. By not clearly stating his opinion of being for or against this technology his argument looses credibility right away.

His argument is made weaker when he starts to patronize his readers and down plays the technology. He describes one idea as “By placing shields in space to reduce the sunlight incident on earth.” Clearly the technology isn’t that simple and throughout the entire article he keeps downplaying the complexity of the ideas to make them seem less thought out. He says that by simply seeding clouds with silver iodine pellets you can “sometimes, under very unpredictable circumstances – stimulate rainfall.” However scientists during a study have found that seeding clouds improved snowfall above the Snowy Mountains in South Wales by 14% when they seeded only 50% of the clouds. They also failed to find any evidence of a harmful environmental effect by the silver iodine used.

Further more the article also mentions technologies that we already use but Conant words them in a way that makes them seem harmful and dangerous. Such as genetically engineered material and the burning of ecosystem. We commonly use genetically engineered material such as food, and controlled burns of forests to control forest fires happen yearly. But Conant tries to put a new negative spin on these technologies and actions when they are to be used to preserve the environment.

Another big claim he makes is that geoengineering is a purely for profit technology for the people who control its patents. Well they did just find a viable way to save our planet from climate change, do they not deserve a bit of compensation? That being said, geoengineering was not created in an attempt to make money. It is an idea on how to preserve the environment from our actions. Conant claims that it is not an end in its self, but just a means to an end in the long run. There is nothing wrong with that. Conant claims that it ignores the source of the problem and therefore the problem it’s self. Carbon dioxide removal and sequestration does not ignore the source of the problem. Yes, carbon dioxide removal and sequestration is not used to eliminate CO2 before it is released. At this stage of technology it is unreasonable to expect to eliminate or even lower our CO2 emissions to a level where our environment could heal it’s self. Instead Carbon Dioxide removal and sequestration helps deal with the CO2 that we produce after we produce it. Conant quotes Faith Gemmill, the director of REDOIL (Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands) “Geoengineering is a way for scientists to remain in denial and for governments to avoid responsibility." If scientists are working to develop systems and technologies to reduce the damage done to the environment and governments are spending millions of dollars on funding for these technologies, clearly this “geoengineering” isn’t so the scientist can deny there is a problem. Conant claims governments have spent trillions of dollars on the industries while letting a billion people to go hungry. Spending money on developing technologies like cloud seeding works towards helping the environment, but also towards crop development which then helps fight hunger.

Another claim made by Conant is that these technologies do not involve developing countries. He states that developing countries do not get a say in the decisions that matter to them and that they are vulnerable to. These countries often come to develop countries to aid them in making these decisions since they lack the resources; both the ability to produce the ideas and the capability to develop them.

Finally Conant claims that geoengineering won’t work because global warming isn’t the problem. He claims that global warming, species die-off, ocean acidification, extreme weather events, extreme poverty and war are symptoms of the problem. The problem being the overuse of Earth’s finite resources. This is the weakest part of his argument. Nowhere does anyone pro geoengineering claim it can fix the problem of overuse. Geoengineering was developed to aid the fight against global warming. If it can help in that sense, than it is doing more towards the problem than what most other people are doing.

In conclusion, Conant’s argument is apparently weak and full of holes. Any educated person could see right through his arguments where he downplays technology or exaggerates the danger of technologies we already use. Either Conant doesn’t understand the complexity of the technology or he voluntarily omits it in an attempt to prove his argument against the technology. Regardless, Conant needs to revise his arguments.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/148587/the_doomsday_machine_and_the_race_to_save_the_world:_geoengineering_emerges_as_plan_b_at_the_11th_hour/?page=entire