Global Warming-Hurry Up and Fix It

The one thing we can all agree on about the human psyche is our impatience to fix things. Take climate change. It crept up on us for a hundred years. When we finally decided that: a) It could be a real problem, and b) we had a hand in making the problem, what do we do? We demand an instant solution- or at least one that gives us results we can see in our lifetime. After all, who could stand still for spending a lot of money, undergo self-imposed restrictions on our lifestyle, and not demand to see the results of our investment?

The lack of a speedy solution seems to be one of the major criticisms of the Cap and Trade Bill. Worldwide efforts to conserve, convert, or bury CO2 to mitigate global warming is just too slow and painful. Opponents say it's too little, too late, and too costly. Well, don’t worry; the free enterprise system will come to our rescue. Smelling opportunity and profit- pseudo climate conscious scientists would like to “geoengineer” the problem so we can all experience that primordial thrill of instant gratification we carry around in our subconscious- probably a latent gene nurtured from generations of slaying wooly mammoths.

I’m not against fixing the problem. I am against expensive, hasty, untested solutions motivated by profit, which might have unknown catastrophic collateral damage down the road. I personally think if it took a hundred years to create the problem and we take another hundred years to fix it; that seems reasonable. Even 50 years from now we may develop earth friendly solutions that could mitigate the problem faster, smarter, cheaper and safer than we can even envision today.

Computer models and simulations would have to be used to validate massive geoengineering solutions- like seeding the heavens with chemicals to create clouds, towing ice bergs to lower latitudes, pumping cold water up from the bottom of the sea, deploying space umbrellas, reforestation of half the world and other such (crazy?) gargantuan undertakings. Having spent a good deal of time with computer models in my career, I can say it’s a scary footing to base any attempts to play god with the environment.

We used to say that computer models would give the analysts the answers they’re being paid to find. It’s nearly impossible to include all the variables. What we don’t know isn’t even considered in the analysis. Another way to look at computer models of this magnitude is: “Garbage in, Gospel out”. If you invest upwards of a billion dollars in a computer model validation of such a major undertaking, the investors expect results- good results. So let’s tread lightly if we do plan to play god, and make sure the implementations, if we go there, are based on human considerations, not profit considerations. Otherwise, we’re in trouble before we start.