Great column in NYT today about geoengineering. I’ve heard of carbon capture before, but not the other idea they introduce – solar radiation management.
And more importantly, I never thought about the problem in the terms he raises. Basically, the idea of treating excess CO2 as an unavoidable by-product of human activity and finding a way to treat it to restore it the planet to a more stable condition.
Many global warming advocates want human activity to slow or change so that there is no excess carbon problem to fix. They object philosophically to humans affecting the planet to such a degree that it requires remediation measures on such a scale as geoengineering would required.
Which made me think of poop…If we applied this sort of ‘no treatment’ logic to human pee and poop, we would be buried under mountains of effluent that would have destroyed the planet.
Are people proposing that we pee and poop less? Or that we are no longer going to treat human waste because it is philosophically objectionable?
P.S. – I also always appreciate it when the NYT steps out of its liberal lockbox as this article does.
[browser-shot url=”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/opinion/joe-nocera-chemo-for-the-planet.html” width=”600″ height=”450″ href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/opinion/joe-nocera-chemo-for-the-planet.html” alt=”NYT: Chemo for the Planet” target=”_blank”]