Geo-Engineering - Interesting Proposal

Being Speedway's Resident Liberal (I guess), I'm sure it is no surprise when I say that I (a) believe the global climate is changing; (b) believe that this change is anthropogenic; (c) global climate change is problematic, from a human existential standpoint; and (d) we should do something about it.

My initial instinct has always been to advocate for "lesser impact" living where possible. Reuse; Reduce; Recycle, as they taught us in school. I read an interesting article tonight in The Atlantic, which I highly recommend. A few highlights:

For the past two years, Wolovick has studied whether a set of targeted geo-engineering projects could hold off the worst sea-level rise for centuries, giving people time to adapt to climate change and possibly reverse it. He is exploring whether building underwater walls at the mouth of the world’s most unstable glaciers—huge piles of sand and stone, stretching for miles across the seafloor—would change how those glaciers respond to the warming ocean and atmosphere, dramatically slowing or reversing their collapse.

If they work as planned, these large walls could make glaciers last as much as 10 times longer than they otherwise would. In rudimentary simulations, the walls make a glacier that would collapse in 100 years last for another millennium.

More and more, I find myself thinking that my own focus on preventing global climate change, or at least minimizing it, has perhaps blinded me to the other end of the stick, so to speak, as to solutions. We not only need to focus on living more sustainably, but we also need to focus our building codes and engineering projects with an eye toward mitigating what we have already done.

The idea referenced above is interesting to me because it takes for granted that upon which we do agree, i.e. that the glaciers are melting. It then moves forward from a position of pragmatism. What can we do that will minimize this problem?

Another idea that occurs to me is that, particularly near rivers, creeks, and streams, we ought to be building and refraining from building in such a way as to promote the natural function of creekbeds: absorb and purify water. Reclaiming wetlands goes right along with this. I used to live in Ft. Wayne, and there is an enormous wetland directly south, and a little to the north of, Engle Rd. there. This used to be a fallow field that could easily have been sold for commercial development; it was right off U.S. 24/W. Jefferson Blvd., which is kind of the big E/W thru-way in the Fort.

Anyway, the wetland is more than just hippy-dippy tree-hugger stuff. Directly to the southeast of the wetland is the largest landfill I have ever seen. The landfill is more or less built on an enormous, industrial, clay shower floor that drains to a series of pipes. Imagine all of the pollution in that drainage, but it has to go somewhere. Hence the wetland. I am given to understand that this landfill drainage ("leachate") is filtered a few times, in various ways, and then sprayed out over the wetland. The landfill operators get an environmental-donation tax benefit; migratory birds get a stopping point; the landfill gets drained; the water gets cleaned. We can only hope that this is a win-win.

I am meandering off the point, though. Go read the article in The Atlantic.