Spring Break
Global warming demands new innovation
Issue date: 10/16/08
Global warming. To those who believe the Earth is really heating up, these two words mean an apocalypse of huge proportions. Ever since scientific data started to show that the human population's ecological footprint could be a factor in global warming, scientists and governments have been urging people to reduce their impact on the world: Drive more fuel efficient cars, turn off the lights when you're not in the room, use public transportation, etc.
These are the methods of the past, and though theoretically, they should reduce the effect of global warming, our diehard habits haven't allowed them to be effective. Greenhouse gases are still being released at even greater levels than at any time in the past. Our planet is slowly and inevitably baking. And so our tax money is being sent to researchers everywhere to develop alternate methods of solving this problem.
The greenhouse gas that we as humans cause the most of is probably carbon dioxide being released from the millions of cars and factories around the world. Naturally, solving the carbon dioxide crisis is a solid first step, and that is indeed what scientists today are experimenting with. We've all heard of possible future technologies that could be the solution to disaster: fuel cells, for example, which have been touted by presidential candidates and car giants as well. But fuel cells and other ideas (wind energy? How about that sunshine?) are researches of the past; In 2008, scientists are trying out completely new and radical techniques.
Some scientists from the German Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research and the Indian National Institute of Oceanography are considering removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. How is it possible to remove a gas from the atmosphere without further messing up the situation? By increasing the number of natural CO2 absorbers: trees and plankton. More trees being planted means more carbon dioxide being absorbed and more oxygen released. Seems like a win-win situation, doesn't it? The problem is, it seems we already have a hard time maintaining the trees we have on this planet. Loggers around the world are reducing the trees in our forests at alarming rates. Replanting trees hasn't done enough to keep our forest levels at equilibrium; Increasing the trees to make a significant change in global warming seems impossible.? The other idea was to stimulate plankton growth in oceans by adding iron, which has been found to sometimes stimulate the growth of planktonic algae. Since these miniscule ocean dwellers also absorb carbon dioxide, this may work as well. But no one knows the consequences of such an action. Would the bloom of plankton cause other ocean life to die? Would it eventually create unsafe water and seafood for humans? Taking that bus to work doesn't seem so bad now, does it?
These are the methods of the past, and though theoretically, they should reduce the effect of global warming, our diehard habits haven't allowed them to be effective. Greenhouse gases are still being released at even greater levels than at any time in the past. Our planet is slowly and inevitably baking. And so our tax money is being sent to researchers everywhere to develop alternate methods of solving this problem.
The greenhouse gas that we as humans cause the most of is probably carbon dioxide being released from the millions of cars and factories around the world. Naturally, solving the carbon dioxide crisis is a solid first step, and that is indeed what scientists today are experimenting with. We've all heard of possible future technologies that could be the solution to disaster: fuel cells, for example, which have been touted by presidential candidates and car giants as well. But fuel cells and other ideas (wind energy? How about that sunshine?) are researches of the past; In 2008, scientists are trying out completely new and radical techniques.
Some scientists from the German Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research and the Indian National Institute of Oceanography are considering removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. How is it possible to remove a gas from the atmosphere without further messing up the situation? By increasing the number of natural CO2 absorbers: trees and plankton. More trees being planted means more carbon dioxide being absorbed and more oxygen released. Seems like a win-win situation, doesn't it? The problem is, it seems we already have a hard time maintaining the trees we have on this planet. Loggers around the world are reducing the trees in our forests at alarming rates. Replanting trees hasn't done enough to keep our forest levels at equilibrium; Increasing the trees to make a significant change in global warming seems impossible.? The other idea was to stimulate plankton growth in oceans by adding iron, which has been found to sometimes stimulate the growth of planktonic algae. Since these miniscule ocean dwellers also absorb carbon dioxide, this may work as well. But no one knows the consequences of such an action. Would the bloom of plankton cause other ocean life to die? Would it eventually create unsafe water and seafood for humans? Taking that bus to work doesn't seem so bad now, does it?
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 3
Leigh
posted 10/18/08 @ 6:47 AM EST
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a miniscule trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount of CO2 increase generated by man is microscopic. The earth has warmed an cooled since the beginning of time. (Continued…)
Sol Shapiro
posted 10/18/08 @ 11:17 AM EST
Good to hear support for geoengineering approaches to reduce global wamring impact - or put it on hold with short term solutions to give the world the century or more it will need to change its energy base - by approaches such as reducing incoming solar flux with particulates in the upper atmosphere - or increase cloud cover. (Continued…)
Post a Comment