|
By: Ian Hogg Summary: Climate change is real and an existential threat to our way of life. Throughout the years there have been numerous proposed solutions that aim to protect and preserve our planet. Among these proposed solutions to the climate crisis are feats of global geoengineering aimed at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere. These carbon removal techniques can be very simple and straightforward, whiles others are much more complicated and expensive to implement. One technique includes reforestation and wetland restoration, which would provide a more naturalistic and feasible approach to removing CO2 from the atmosphere. There are other more complicated and more expensive manmade geoengineering solutions. Among these are way to directly capture CO2 from the air through the use carbon capture facilities. As seen in the picture below, these facilities would take in the surrounding air and filter of the greenhouse gases and store them in storage spaces underground. Geoengineering has not yet become a feasible and productive solution to the climate crisis. In the case of the manmade facilities, they are expensive and take time require upkeep. The more naturalistic solutions are much more feasible and affordable, but also require upkeep and manpower to implement. However, now the global community is struggling to create real and lasting change when it comes to combating climate change. Governments, scientists, and citizens need to look at all the proposed solutions to this urgent issue and come together to create lasting change and preserve this planet for future generations. All solutions should be on the table; we are running out of time and the future of our planet is at stake. We need to act now. Geoengineering may not be the end all be all solution to the climate crisis, but these solutions cannot hurt when it comes to creating an environmentally conscious and sustainable global community. Why we should care? We need to be looking at all the possible methods of reducing the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. While some of the geoengineered solutions seem far-fetched and not feasible, I believe we should still consider them.  Photo Credit: https://carbonengineering.com/wp-content/themes/carbon-engineering/img/technology/photo1@2x.jpg Example Article. https://www.vice.com/en/article/9354y5/geoengineering-climate-change This article provides a great look at the various ways geoengineering can be used in the fight against climate change. It also includes a number of scientists and professionals that work in the field of geoengineering and provides a glimpse at their work. These individuals provide insight on what geoengineering is and how it can be better implemented. By providing insight from people within the field =, the reader is able to get a better picture of the up and coming future of geoengineering. All of these different perspectives are interesting and provide a great base of knowledge on the possibilities geoengineering has to offer in the fight against climate change. Science in Action.
Dr. David Keith is the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University. David Keith’s work led to him creating Carbon Engineering, which is a company that develops technology aimed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. His work is relevant to the discussion of carbon capture because he has gone ahead and actually created a company aimed doing just that. The work of his research and company have led to new methods in capturing carbon from the atmosphere. He is just one example of how geoengineering and geoengineers are creating innovative and interesting solutions to climate change. According to their website, the company has been capturing carbon from the atmosphere since 2015 and they currently oversee the largest Direct Air Capture plant.
9 Comments
Ben Matthews
11/25/2020 14:28:23
The natural systems which have kept the atmosphere balanced in the past shouldn’t be overlooked or ignored for human interests. We should focus on preserving natural carbon sinks such as jungle forests, while transitioning to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources to limit the amount of greenhouse gasses. I don’t believe that we should be altering these natural cycles while relying solely on human innovation to correct our mistakes. Human innovation could work alongside natural systems to improve our current situation.
Michael VanPaepeghem
12/1/2020 10:15:46
I found this to be a very interesting read. To me the fact that building facilities to remove CO2 is actually happening is bitter sweet. Like you said if the most feasible method to reduce CO2 emissions is large scale reforestation programs. I find it amazing that large CO2 removal facilities are even being built when trees could be planted on that land instead. I do really hope the field of geoengineering continues to grow and make a lasting impact on the our planet.
Molly McKeon
12/1/2020 10:26:34
In my opinion, it sucks that all people can think about is "well, this is expensive so we can't do it." when it comes to saving the planet and giving our future generations the ability to even live. At some point, we aren't going to have a choice and either we have to build things like this to fix the issues we started in the first place or the human race will face extinction and that will be the end of the Anthropocene era.
Brielle M
12/1/2020 11:09:32
Geoengineering, according to David Keith, could actually be very inexpensive when comparing it to its lasting benefits. He predicted that it could cost roughly $10 billion to implement and it would result in a reduction of more than one percent of the Earth’s GDP. However, you mentioned other natural alternatives to reducing the amount of CO2 emissions such as wetland restoration and reforestation. I looked it up and found that wetland restoration costs anywhere from $200 to $3,300 per acre. The highest cost is in corn-producing areas. The restoration of these areas could take anywhere from 4 to 30 years to completely be restored too, meaning more and more money is going to have to go into it. Based off of further research, I would say reforestation would be the safest and cheapest form of CO2 reduction that we can all contribute towards now. The cost of replanting a tree is anywhere from 10 cents to $20. Assuming that it cost $20 for one tree, if everyone in Michigan alone were to contribute (all 10 million of us), then 200 million trees could be planted! Imagine if the whole world population joined in on this!
Ella F
12/4/2020 10:21:52
Hi Brielle,
Ela F
12/4/2020 10:15:01
Hi Ian,
Ivy Eifert
12/14/2020 20:03:46
Hi Ian,
Shelby Wilson
12/18/2020 23:39:12
You seem to be very enthusiastic and knowledgeable about this subject and it was a great read. It was great to learn about another way to combat climate change. I think this would be great and fast solution if only it wasn't so expensive. I would be interested to learn more about the safety of storing that CO2 in the ground and if there another possible way to do it. I agree that was need to act fast because time is running out. I am all in favor for planting more trees because it is more natural. Reforestation has been on the table for some time now and there has been little to nothing done about it. Great article!
Lucas LaForte
12/22/2020 04:41:54
It is really sad to see climate change be such a treat to the world we live in. We are very lucky to have these brave scientists to research into alternative ways of producing energy, specifically renewable energy. Geothermal engineering and geothermal energy is not something I am very familiar with, but plan to get more akin with in the future. Based on what I read in you article, I think it is incredibly sad that geothermal energy has not become a feasible or productive solution to combat the climate crisis. If reducing the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere is the main goal, I think we should be looking to diversify our energy system on a larger scale, and I believe we should be investing in wind power technology more so than geo thermal power technology. At least in the state of Michigan, wind power has been a very effective solution at combating CO2 emission. Currently, wind power makes about 5 percent of Michigan’s energy production, while geothermal makes up less than 1 percent. If you want to look into a real success story of wind power, though, I suggest looking into the energy grid of Denmark. They are the posterchild of wind energy technology. Over the last thirty years, they have continued to increase the use of wind energy in their energy grid. As it stands, 47 percent of their total energy generation comes from wind power alone. Moral of the story is, geothermal might not be the best solution, but wind power might be. Leave a Reply. |
AuthorStudents of EVS 1500 Archives
December 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed