On February 28th, we discuss “natural geoengineering,” the capability of the Ecosystem to contrast and, in part, remedy the damage done to it by humans. It is a webinar organized by WAAS (World Academy for Arts and Science) in collaboration with the Club of Rome. We discuss the role of forests and oceans, and we compare it with some more possible actions. We also discuss the human side of the problem, especially for the less privileged populations living in the regions that risk being the most negatively affected by global warming. Register here for the seminar.
I don’t know about you, but I am scared. The latest data about global warming are like a bulletin of a war being lost. That’s scary. And even more scary is the reaction of that nebulous entity we call “humankind.” No reaction at all except indifference, denial, and silent desperation. And, in addition, engaging in wars and exterminations. Humankind is truly showing its worst.
Like many others, I have been thinking about geoengineering, if not as a “solution,” at least as a way to slow down warming before it starts being even more deadly than it is already. And I can tell you that I am scared about that, too. There are many proposals and ideas on how to cool the planet by geoengineering, but it is a dangerous path. Touching such a complex thing as the Ecosystem always has consequences, and the effects of some proposed solutions could be worse than the problem.
So, I have been working on the concept of “Natural Geoengineering,” which simply means to let the ecosystem do the job it has been doing for hundreds of millions of years before humans started tampering with it. That is, keeping stable Earth’s climate and all the other parameters that make life possible on Earth. It is the concept called “biotic regulation” or, in a different but related version, the Gaia Principle. The ecosystem is not just a carbon stock; it is, in a certain sense, “alive” and it can actively react to external perturbations. Can the Ecosystem be restored in such a way as to contrast global warming and all the negative effects of human action?
It is possible. I have been working with some great experts in ecosystem science, learned many things, and understood a little of the incredible complexity of the Earth System. There are things we can do or, better, stop doing in order to restore the ecosystem and, within some limits, cool the planet and remedy some of the worst damage done during the industrial age and before. Restoring Earth’s forests and marine biomes is the most promising way to do that. Forests are no mere stock of carbon, they actively cool the earth through biophysical effects related to the evapotranspiration of water vapor. And the ocean can re-absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide if we can restore its biological activity (we need more whales!)
We will discuss this subject in an upcoming seminar organized by WAAS in collaboration with the Club of Rome. It is a first attempt to put together some of the experts in the field and try to understand what we can do.
Speakers include: Ugo Bardi, University of Florence, member of The Club of Rome, Fellow WAAS, Anastassia Makarieva, Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Institute for Advanced Studies, Technical University of Munich, Edward W. (Ted) Manning, President, Tourisk Inc., member of The Club of Rome, Anitra Thorhaug, Yale Center for Natural Carbon Capture, Yale University; President, Greater Caribbean Energy and Environment Foundation, member of The Club of Rome, Co-President, US Association of the Club of Rome; Ian Dunlop, Senior Member of the Advisory Board, The Breakthrough – National Centre for Climate Restoration; Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, member of The Club of Rome; Chaden Diyab, Founder, IES EMEA (Industrial Environment & Sustainability) and Green Education Program in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
Moderated by Nebojša Nešković, Vice President WAAS, President, Serbian Chapter of The Club of Rome.
Thanks for the heads up, Ugo. I doubt that I, as a layman, would be able to understand much of the seminar in real time ... but I would love a synopsis or even a transcript if such will be available on the web.
And thanks for having a virtual conference, as opposed to flying people to a conference hotel !
Whatever one believes with respect to the "climate change" issue, I believe you are on a safe track with the "Natural Geoengineering" idea. As I read it, this approach consists of two core ideas. The first would be simply to back off on consumption and seek a more sustainable way of living. The second would involve moving, IN A NATURAL WAY USING NATURAL METHODS, toward reconstruction of the ecosphere to make it more closely resemble an earlier, more natural world.
I find most of the geoengineering proposals I've read about much more alarming than the prospect of climate change itself. Many of them appear to be huge gambles that may not work and likely would have unanticipated side effects. Worst yet, many seem like they might be irreversible, leaving humankind (not to mention all the other creatures on earth and the planet itself) far from shore without landmarks, never to find our way back. The approach you describe has the apparent benefit of moving the planet back to a known earlier state.
The "experts" advocating these radical, engineered artificial solutions to a (perceived?) human-made crisis are people in a hurry, unwilling to wait until they reach the point in their research that would allow a safe application of their ideas. In their hubris, they push ahead aggressively, viewing the human race itself as nothing more than a planet filled with nameless test subjects. This is just one of many areas where this is true--bioengineering, artificial intelligence, radical cultural restructuring, and information manipulation are other examples.
The effects on the planet and on humanity itself are extremely complex, and this seems insufficiently appreciated. One analogy I might make would be the modern use of pharmaceuticals amongst the elderly. I read just recently that in the US (at least), it is not uncommon for the elderly to take as many as 14-15 prescription medications regularly (that is, long-term). After the first couple, the rest are usually taken to counteract side-effects of earlier ones, stacking a new one on as those side-effects multiply. A recent study found some amazing improvement in general health was realized simply by cutting way back on the number of meds these people were taking.