This was written by my friend Devon. I have posted it here for the worlds reading enjoyment. Without further ado…

In the aftermath of Katrina, the nation’s attention has been brought to possible factors of what created such a strong hurricane. Could it be due to globally warmer sea surface temperatures? Research into the patterns of hurricanes has shown a link between warmers sea surface temperatures leading to stronger hurricanes. The most widely supported theory in the scientific community suggesting why we are seeing increased sea surface temperatures is an increased amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas presently in the Earth’s atmosphere and is mainly created as a product of the combustion of fossil fuels. With studies similar to the Vostok ice cores, linking increased presence of CO2 with increasing temperatures, the authors of these studies have suggested drastic cuts in the use of fossil fuels as the best solution. This however is unsettling to many whom are comfortable with using gas to fill the engine of their car and are able to live at an extreme level of comfort thanks to the technologic advances made through the use of fossil fuels. Heated debates have arose many times before about the accuracy of these studies and their solution eliminating the progress created by the industrial age. To understand those against such an idea, it is best to find the person with the strongest opinion in opposition to this idea. That would lead to only one such person in the US…Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh is most likely the best voice for those against climate change, and with his “loud” opinions, has created a strong following of supporters. These supporters have dozens of websites and weblogs on which they exchange ideas that they claim as supporting their opinions through scientific evidence. The most interesting argument found was not one of total opposition to climate change, but one questioning the suggested method of how to solve the problem, namely the reduction of CO2 by a steady decrease in the amount of fossil fuels used.

In the Sunday, Nov 30 edition, of the Register newspaper of Orange County, California, there is an article titled “Can we cool it?,” by physics professor, Gregory Benford of UC, Irvine. He proposes some very simple straight forward solutions, such as planting more trees, dumping iron into the oceans to stimulate the growth of plankton, making our rooftops, parking lots, etc. more reflective. Unfortunately, one doubts if these simple and relatively inexpensive solutions will be considered because they would limit the amount of control the politicos could obtain compared with the measures they seem to have in mind.
Gray, Rush-Online Global Warming Forum

Dr. Benford’s article suggests that instead of denying the use of fossil fuels, we should instead balance the system by implementing “geoengineering” techniques and our advanced knowledge of weather prediction to remove the carbon from the air to be stored in other carbon sinks. Benford first suggests that through the planting of fast growing trees carbon would quickly be removed from the atmosphere in the short term, long term if trees were used for lumber or paper. Where would these trees be planted? He points out that there is the possibility of growing trees on land not currently being utilized. However, since the amount of land would be larger than any combination of plots owned by the government, it would need to be a collective effort implemented on a regional level to have any impact.

Another possible solution would be to move the carbon to the ocean and ultimately deposit it back into the Earth’s crust through the stimulation of phytoplankton productivity. Benford cites an experiment carried out by John Martin of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in California. Martin claimed that by dumping large amounts of iron dust into the world’s polar oceans, the increased sunlight would speed the growth of phytoplankton that would absorb the CO2 into their bodies. When the phytoplankton die, they would carry the CO2 to the depths of the oceans. The US government conducted such an experiment in 1996 to find that the amount of iron dumped sparked phytoplankton growth 2,000 times its own weight. However, despite the response, it is not clearly understood how this changed the localized carbon cycle. More research would be needed in finding whether the carbon was incorporated into the phytoplankton or if it instead was reintroduced back into the air as the population died.

A third possibility that Benson proposes is based on increasing the albedo of the Earth, its reflectivity. It could be as simple as building white rooftops or adding glass to asphalt and coloring it similar to concrete. There are other ways that are more high tech such as placing panels in space to reflect the amount of light back towards the sun and other planets. However, this is costly and then calls into question our knowledge of the balance of an entire galaxy. Coming back down to Earth, this time focusing on the clouds and their ability to reflect light. By adding more particulate matter in the air, it would create the same effect as demonstrated after a volcanic eruption, decreased global temperatures from increased albedo from increased amounts of particles in the atmosphere. With a host of other suggestions of how more particulate matter can be introduced into our atmosphere and prolong the life or number of clouds present, Benson states that these solutions are not only cost effective but can be easily fixed. Should they have unseen negative impacts on the Earth through careful weather monitoring, their use can be stopped and their impacts will quickly dissipate.

With such a grand list of experiments leading to solutions, can Benson have a solution that will not be as costly as he claims the reduction and possible elimination of using fossil fuels to be? More important to note is the social wants and needs of the world’s population for a cheap fuel source. The Rush supporter also brings up the thought of politics, but more importantly has missed the realization of the specific politics in play: investors and stockholders of the petroleum industry. Should anyone come up with this novel solution that would not eliminate the use of fossil fuel and still be able to deplete our atmosphere from CO2, who is to benefit financially? Benson closes with alluding to science being able to provide an answer despite skeptics of such claims of science, but even if it could, it would fail to solve the social and political problems of the current world created by fossil fuels.