Is Geo Engineering the Future of Our Dying Planet?

Geoengineering has been one of the biggest advancements in the sciences, but this alone is not enough to save our burning planet. In fact, it’ll never be.

We all say that we do our part to keep this Earth clean, to keep this Earth from dying, but do we really? Do we all have two recycling bins, one green and one brown to compost our waste and put it back into use? Do we all regularly deposit all our glass bottles and tin into the bins of a recycling center? Do we all sort through unwanted light bulbs and batteries just to do our part? Well, this is what the average capable citizen in Scandinavia is required to do. It is the bare minimum, and in fact because of their ways, they are able to recycle 90% of all trash. Compare that to the rest of the world, where only 9% percent of the world’s resources are reused each year. Let that sink in. There is an obvious solution, and while not all countries have the capacity to implement such systems, there are equally as many that can learn from this way.

Scandinavian living does not have to be the bare minimum, but something as simple as reducing use of plastics could have major positive impacts on global air and water pollution. Yet, we choose not to do what is best for our planet. We continue to trash our streets, pollute our cities and burn our planet.

Geoengineering works by injecting aerosols into our atmosphere in hopes of reflecting sunlight back into space. Potentially, this could lower the Earth's overall temperature and mitigate the effects of manmade global warming. In theory, this could be extremely effective in the long run, but as with any new technology, problems are not far behind.

At this point, no scientists are capable enough of completely reversing our destruction, and while geoengineering is developing more each day, at the moment, and even in ten years time, it is very likely that this technology will do more harm than good. This invention is the (not so) easy way out of what we have caused, however a much cheaper and more logical approach to climate change would be to simply plant large quantities of trees, which are natural CO2 vacuums. Who would have thought?

By no means should we give up on the idea of geoengineering; in the past, volcanic eruptions have ejected aerosols such as sulfate, which reflects sunlight back into space, and has even managed to lower the average global climate by up to 1° F for each eruption. Because of this you may be thinking, if we manually are able to create volcanic eruptions, then won’t we have reversed our effects? Well, not quite.

Studies found that geoengineering would be an ineffective way to mitigate the damages that climate change poses to agricultural production. Models and data from past volcanic eruptions were used to predict how geoengineering would affect future crop production. They predicted that the Pinatubo Eruption in 1991 lowered the earth's sunlight by 2.5%. In the years following these eruptions, massive crop yields decreased, likely due to the shading. This new science is just not capable of saving our atmosphere, and at the same time, keeping the production of our resources running, at least not in the present day.

The cooling that geoengineering provides protects the crops from heat damage, however, geoengineering also counteracts the available amount of solar energy in the atmosphere that crops use to grow. This is one of the many reasons that geoengineering would simply not be a sustainable way of living, ever.

Furthermore, we take solar energy for granted. Many emissions would simply not be necessary if we used solar panels on the roofs of our homes or in commercial sectors. Same goes for wind turbines which are not used in as many places as they should be!

Our impact is important, especially considering that we are the largest contributor to the mass destruction and downfall of our own planet. How many living species can say that? Just us.

A Recent report by the United Nations gave us just 10 years before our effects on the planet become irreversible, yet, no panic, no empathy for our planet has been evoked.

And not to put the blame on one region, but the USA is undeniably one of the biggest contributors to carbon emissions, with a 7 percent increase since 1990. We can even expect higher numbers since former President Donald Trump canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions, loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters, and 92 other actions that will contribute towards the depletion of our planet. All efforts thrown out the window, in hopes of a soaring economy. Since the 2020 election however, some attempts for a brighter future have been implemented. With that being said, every increase in carbon emissions, among other pollutants, have an impact.

Referring back to the UN Report, we have ten years, ten whole years to change the way we live on this planet. For all of us, we will then be able to vote. If laws are implemented, if governments react, and action is taken, we may potentially be able to reverse at least some of the effects of our careless living. There is no easy way out of this.

Generations after us will always have to live with the aftermath of our carbon footprint, but there is change, there is hope, we just have to act now.

Alma Mahmood 11D