Can technology save our planet from climate hell?
Let's avoid the word "inevitable" and just stick with, "Crap! We need to focus!"
By Claire Cho
Special to The Truth OC
The world is closer to a “point of no return” than previously thought. Once the estimated “point of no return” is reached, scientists believe that global warming will be unable to be stopped. It is forecasted that continued global heating will trigger a cascade of tipping points and feedback loops which would lock the planet into a rapid and unstoppable escalation of heat and climate-triggered events.
On a similarly threatening note, the “Doomsday Clock”—a clock counting down to humanity’s destruction—was recently set to 85 seconds till midnight, the closest it has ever been since its conception in 1947. The Doomsday Clock’s three primary drivers include: nuclear threats, climate change and disruptive technologies which have begun to be realized in the form of artificial intelligence.
Technology has historically represented growth, innovation, and prosperity. Launching major events of economic upturn and rising quality of life, technology has always signaled improving times. Throughout these events, the environment has frequently borne the utility cost. Yet, until recently, humanity has not been affected by damage to the environment and therefore put very little research into the possible negative side effects of technology. Now that growing climate events have begun to threaten lives and livelihoods, climate science research has surged and begun to show the growing cause for concern for humanity’s environmental impacts.
Paradoxically, many scientists have begun to posit that technology may be the only way to reverse the effects of the climate crisis. The same technologies that pushed humanity towards the brink of collapse are expected to peel us back. The concept of using technology to fix the climate crisis has become known as geoengineering: the deliberate, large-scale modification of Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.
Geoengineering has become one of the most controversial topics of conversation in the climate science world. Critics have accused geoengineering of “playing god” with fanatical, borderline absurd and untested technologies. Just a couple of examples include Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Ocean Fertilization, and—get ready—space mirrors. SAI has been heavily explored in India which has recently faced rising heat-caused deaths. SAI entails the release of tiny, reflective particles such as sulfur dioxide or calcium carbonate dust into the upper atmosphere to mimic a cooling effect often caused by volcanic eruptions. Ocean fertilization involves the dumping of nutrients into the ocean to stimulate rapid blooms of carbon-absorbing phytoplankton. Then, finally, space mirrors are almost exactly as it sounds: the launching of giant, reflective mirrors or sunshades into orbit to block solar radiation.
There must be a forewarning before entertaining such a radical reimagining of the natural world. As Rachel Carson once famously said in her book Silent Springs, “In nature, nothing exists alone.” While geoengineering advocates claim that consequences have been thoroughly researched, modern humanity still knows very little about the inner-workings of the biosphere and its intricate web of relationships. Brute force efforts to manipulate the natural world have historically resulted in cascading, disastrous consequences for the broader world. So to zealously advocate for under-tested technology is not just foolish, but possibly deadly.
Following four years at UC Berkeley, a university full of tech start-up hopefuls and Silicon Valley followers, I have often heard the word “inevitable” when referring to technology. Following a presentation on the negative impacts of AI, a classmate told me, “If you don’t start embracing AI, you will be left behind”.
“Inevitable” has become my least favorite word, and in my opinion, overused. We live in a humanity of free will (unless you are a follower of Determinism, then disregard). There is nothing inevitable about AI and technology, the only inevitability is the pursuit of power and profit. While it may prove to be true that technology is the only way to solve the climate crisis, there must be an emphasis on prevention as opposed to mitigation. Life on earth has existed for many millenniums and will continue to exist long after the human race is gone. Without a more timely and cognizant approach to preventative efforts, mitigation will not be enough to escape the ever-approaching climate crisis.
Claire Cho is a recent graduate from the University of California, Berkeley where she studied environmental policy and law. Following Berkeley, Claire intends to attend law school and pursue environmental law. You can follow her on Instagram here.