Technology can undoubtedly make the world a better place. Where, after all, would we be without the wheel, agriculture or email?
Still, there’s almost always a flipside to technological advances. The wheel improved not only travel, but warfare. Agriculture made food more reliable for humans … but also, eventually, helped give rise to confined animal feeding operations, the Gulf of Mexico’s Dead Zone and, for better or worse, the Hardee’s Thickburger. As for email? I have one word for you: Spam.
So when it comes to the fixes being offered for climate change, it’s wise to approach technology warily. Yes, in theory, we could erase our ever-growing greenhouse gas problem if we perfect carbon capture and storage … but that won’t eliminate the environmental degradation wrought by coal mining or the threat of peak oil. And, yes, more nuclear power might reduce our dependence on foreign oil … but it could only increase threats of sabotage or terrorism.
Even more troubling are the global warming “solutions” being offered by fans of geoengineering. This is the idea of seeding the oceans with iron to encourage plankton growth that absorbs carbon dioxide. Of course, too many nutrients in the ocean also cause algal blooms that suck up oxygen, making vast areas unlivable for marine species — again, think the Dead Zone. That’s why it was encouraging this week to hear one international organization come out against geoengineering experiments in the world’s oceans.
The International Maritime Convention (IMO), a United Nations agency with 167 member-states (including the U.S.) makes its primary focus maritime safety. This week, though, members of the IMO’s London Convention, a 1972 treaty on marine pollution, said they also have authority over geoengineering experiments at sea. Their “statement of concern” warned that, given our current knowledge of how ocean fertilization works, large-scale experiments of that nature “are currently not justified.”
