|
Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope - or Worst Nightmare - for Averting Climate Catastrophe
|
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. At one time a fringe notion, the idea of geoengineering-using radical means to change the climate deliberately-is gaining traction in scientific conferences and even in the White House, where doubts are growing regarding the efficacy of mainstream strategies (conservation, alternative energy, "storing carbon dioxide from coal plants in the ground"). In this fascinating wake-up call, Science magazine writer Kintisch begins with the startling notion that "clean air could kill us," because tiny particles in the atmosphere scatter sunlight and cool the planet; a proposal mimicking the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which cooled the earth by a half degree, would release 5.3 million tons of sulfur into the atmosphere per year to counter global warming. Opponents argue that the unforeseen consequences of this and similar efforts could prove more disastrous than the original problems; Kintisch also suggests that conservatives embracing radical solutions like large-scale ocean algae blooms are simply trying to block profit-threatening regulation and alternative energy development. By no means a run-of-the-mill survey of climate change solutions, this volume takes a engaged but balanced look at humanity's life-or-death situation, providing numerous angles on the role of cutting-edge science as either "our downfall or our savior."
"Geoengineering is generally defined as the application of engineering techniques to alter the planet as a whole...as Mr. Kintisch relates, these remedies are not necessarily simple and even their easy-to-envision consequences can be alarming."
New York Times

17/04/2010
Hack the Planet is a scary read, cataloguing the history of the unpleasant idea of geoengineering. It's filled with paranoia about potential disasters to the climate and the biosphere. It shows us nightmares about governance and the potential for future climate wars regarding setting the global thermostat. Unfortunately, such paranoia is well justified.
In reading this book, it's obvious Kintisch has done his homework. His knowledge of climate science is spot-on, as is his history of geoengineering. One can tell he's been reading about this sobering subject for quite a while. He's traveled the world to meetings and talked to just about everyone in the field. If anyone could ever present a holistic, balanced picture of geoengineering, Kintisch certainly has the credentials, and he does not fail to deliver.
One of my favorite things about the book is his witty choice to precede each chapter with an interesting anecdote about how man's efforts to shape the climate around him has often led to ecological disaster. After reading these, one would think twice before approaching climate modification with even a shred of hubris.
He also brings home the important point about the very nature of scientific research, in that we will never know everything. Any uncertainties will always be critical to our understanding of such a complex, interrelated system.
That said, some of the concerns Kintisch addresses are overblown, especially regarding confidence in climate model predictions. He devotes a great deal of time to explaining how the uncertainty in our knowledge of the climate sensitivity could lead us to distrust the predictive power of our best tool for studying geoengineering, which is far from necessary. If we didn't believe the models, we wouldn't be worried about global warming in the first place. There's a story to tell even without lambasting the models: even in the middle range of climate sensitivity, society still faces potential catastrophe and a possible need for geoengineering.
Moreover, I dislike the idea of dividing geoengineering researchers into two camps, based on their leaning toward or away from calling geoengineering a necessity. I can understand that, for people not directly involved in the geoengineering debate, it can be helpful to have a general idea as to who is on which "side." However, even inside the debate, I've seen quite a few examples of misattribution of ideas based on the perception that someone belongs to a particular camp. I think that because the line of demarcation is too ill-defined, it's a bit premature to start assigning the researchers to one side or another. Kintisch does strongly make the point, and rather well, that nearly everyone in the geoengineering arena is calling for more research.
The book pleasantly ends with a lighter note. Hidden beneath the doomsaying is a faith in humanity, evidenced by his final anecdote, which is a success story. He seems to imply that, should we proceed with caution, foresight, and appropriate humility for our truly awesome subject, we may be able to understand geoengineering's role in making our climate better for all, whatever that role turns out to be.
This is an important read for anyone who wishes to enter the geoengineering debate. Maybe even an essential read. And certainly a fascinating one.

16/04/2010
Geoengineering is getting increased attention within the scientific community and, increasingly, policy communities as the Global Warming picture becomes ever more dire and serious climate change mitigation action seems to becoming ever less a near-term likelihood.
Kintisch is an excellent writer who provides a review of the risks and, potentially, opportunities in the extreme option of geoengineering to avoid catastrophic climate chaos.

16/04/2010
Kintisch is a climate-writing triple threat: He knows the science as well as anyone, he can put the science in a political context, and he has a writing style that can turn an informative scientific survey into a page-turner. A very worthwhile read for anyone who wants ahead-of-the-curve knowledge of a subject that will be getting major public attention in the not-too-distant future.
Your Name:
Your Review: Note: HTML is not translated!
Rating: Bad Good
Enter the code in the box below:






















