Engineering Connections for Climate Change

I’ve been thinking a lot about connections. About how we construct them between other humans, about what that means, and about why it’s so difficult to engineer any kind of meaningful connection between us and our environments.

There’s that familiar saying, ‘To know the true size of the desert, you must walk it,’ and I fear that it may be true, because the only meaningful connections I have with others regarding climate change and the Antarctic is either with those who have walked it like I have, or with those who study it intensely, such as other geologists and environmentalists.

I don’t want this to be true. I want everyone to be able to know the weight of these problems, I want everyone to be able to take it seriously without having to resort to going there or being so heavily involved with it in their lives. I don’t want this to be true because it means that no change is ever going to come if it is.

I want to talk about the emotional dimensions just as much as the physical ones. I want to have a serious conversation where we talk about the temperatures on the West Antarctic peninsula and what this means for penguin populations just as much as I want to reveal the immense isolation and reverence of walking in pristine snow with a blanket of heavy snow-cloud above me, ice crystals hovering in the air and resting on my brow. It’s a world apart from status updates and commuter woes, a world apart from the place of constant connections. But it’s still a connection, albeit a deep, slow-moving one.

When I think about it on my own, a kind of calm overcomes me. It’s a sad sort of calm. It’s the kind of calm that heralds stormy seas approaching. It means something has to change.

I think what it means is that we can’t just think about engineering solutions to the Earth’s physical problems (ice melt, climate change), we have to think about engineering solutions for how we make our interpersonal connections, how we get the message across seriously to other human beings.

There have to be solutions as to how to do this. Increased science communication has already been shown to do good in educating people on the physical side of the problem. Maybe re-marketing this science communication for an incredibly non-sci market would do the trick, but it would have to be carefully considered so it doesn’t become another novelty ‘Breathtaking Earth Photos’ style communication; there are so many of those at the moment that they start to lose poignancy. The message would have to cut through somehow, and I don’t know how that would work in an Internet-based consumer market. If it’s not something that’s instantly consumable or easily-understandable it’s hard to push across. And it runs the risks of being branded with the hippie tag, which turns a lot of folk off instantly. The fact is, the way we humans perform our social interactions has changed massively since the Internet became prominent in our lives over the past few decades, and the way we talk about some issues hasn’t quite caught up.

I can interact perfectly well with other scientists on social media but they already have a vested interest in such topics – other folk it’s harder to get involved. For instance, I’ve had many a time in real life meeting with friends where my feelings on climate issues are brushed over in order to talk about the latest film or celebrity mishap, and I’ve had many a time on social media where my glacier photography has been ‘outed’ as a screencap from some popular videogame.

Glacier in the Lemaire Channel - totally just a screencap from Skyrim!
Glacier in the Lemaire Channel – totally just a screencap from Skyrim!


I am always of the thought that if somebody I care about is interested in a thing, I treat it seriously, because it matters to them. Even if I have strong moral objections to that thing, it’s still a serious issue. And I worry about what we’re doing to our human connections if we stop taking seriously the things that matter to us – because if we don’t take them seriously we’ll never question those things, we’ll never understand them, we’ll never move on.

How would you get your friends at the pub interested in such a thing?

How would you get your friends on Facebook interested?

Or is it a bit of a pointless issue and should we be approaching it from a different angle?

If anyone has any thoughts or ideas, hit me up, because we need to start engineering solutions for the human connection on climate issues.

A Problem of Scale

When people first think of geoengineering, it’s easy to fall for the exotic-sounding stuff. The cloud seeding. The carbon capture. Terra-forming. But geoengineering exists on all scales, from your own back garden to that of the entire planet, and what matters is the boundaries within which that part of the scale operates.

Geoengineering can be defined at its most basic level as interactions and interventions with the Earth system. This encompasses subsurface geological engineering, environmental engineering and climate engineering, and on this blog, the term geoengineering covers all these aspects of Earth interactions.

We’ve been engineering our Earth for century upon century. Tilling the soil to create a fertile basis for agriculture is engineering our own environment. Building dams and aqueducts do the same – manipulate our environment to suit our own causes which we decide are important. Soil manipulation happens every day on small scales and large – from gardens to farms. In the past, one of the grandest soil engineering projects ever was undertaken by the inhabitants of the Amazon rainforest: they created a dark, organic-rich soil known as Terra Preta, on a large Amazon-basin-wide scale, and this nutrient filled soil played a huge part in facilitating crop growth within the forest.

Water management is a good example of geoengineering which comes with an inherent problem of scale as civilisations grow. Towns and cities, usually near rivers, develop with a manageable water supply for the most part, but as they grow larger, water and waste management systems have to be retrofitted around the pre-existing systems. This is why many older cities in Europe have huge issues with managing urban drainage in correlation with population growth, whereas more newly-developed cities in Asia are designed to accommodate such growth.

In Samsø, a small island in Denmark with a population of less than 4000, the entire energy supply is obtained by use of wind turbines on or around the island. This is an example of a regional-scale geoengineering solution.

In places like Turkey and Iceland, geoengineering is used on a nationwide scale to provide geothermal energy. And on a larger scale, petroleum companies use geoengineering technology globally to extract fossil fuels.

In the past century, there have been two main changes. The first is that technology has advanced to such a state whereby we are able to leave our own planet. This leads to a desire to construct what I consider the grandest scale of geoengineering, that which affects the Earth’s system as a whole. The gases emitted from the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum are an example, not of a specific desired outcome, but as a global side effect of the geoengineering technology used to extract fossil fuels from the ground.

What is interesting about this grandest scale is that, while it affects all smaller scales, there is no chance of the smaller scales of geoengineering affecting it. We can fertilise the soil in our backyards to combat the effects of, say, acid rain, but just for that particular patch in time and space.  But if a geoengineering project were to neutralise the effects of acid rain (hypothetically), this would affect all small-scale patches of soil in that part of the world.

Equally, we could use cloud seeding on a regional scale to make the weather play nice for a specific event (like Beijing did for the 2008 Winter Olympics ceremony), but these localised effects would be dwarfed by a wider scheme like, if somebody managed to seed the stratosphere to the same extent as major historic volcanic eruptions. Something like that, if possible, would affect climate systems worldwide and not weather systems in a particular area for a limited period of time.

And furthermore, the side effects from a particular engineering method may not be important if you are only looking at the small scale. For instance, when petroleum geology was in its infancy, we were unable to foresee the potential problems this could cause for the entire world, as we did not realise how much demand and usage would increase over the centuries, and what this would do to the atmosphere. We only ever looked at the smaller scale.

The second main change that has occurred in the past century is that our understanding of the world has advanced to such a degree that we realise we are destroying it and its lifeforms, including ourselves.  This, combined with the first, gives us the possibility of purposefully changing the climate, and adds a new cause to those which we have deigned important enough to warrant geoengineering in the past. Not only for human energy requirements, or comfort, or security, but for the maintenance of a steady state of the environment. The concept of using geoengineering for sustainability is not new – we have after all been using sustainable methods of agriculture in many locations worldwide. What is new is the combination of this plus technology.

Whether or not engineering on such a large scale would actually work or not, or whether it would be safe or not, or even whether we have the ability to accurately account for side effects, are questions for another time. For now, remember that problems arise because of scale, and scale needs to be considered in order to tackle environmental problems at their roots.

A Definition of Geoengineering

Geoengineering is a word that is applied to a few different things. This is a little confusing, so I’m going to set the record straight on why this occurred and also provide a clearer definition of what geoengineering is.

In the past, geoengineering merely meant the technical methods used to exploit the Earth’s subsurface resources. In tandem, environmental engineering developed, which deals with the surface interactions of humans with the Earth, mainly with the aim of improving our environment. And more recently, the concept of climate engineering has taken hold, and among the public, climate engineering has become better known as geoengineering.

What is the most useful definition of geoengineering to use? I would have thought it be the one that targets the most basic meaning of the word, one that does not restrict the word to a smaller area of remit.

Here on this blog I use the term geoengineering to refer to any human interaction or intervention with the Earth system. The climate, the environment, the Earth’s subsurface petroleum resources, these are all part of the Earth system, and by using the term as such, I can gain a better understanding of all the aspects – potential benefits and pitfalls – of human interaction with our home planet. It’s easy to become blinkered when you’re only looking at one aspect of a system, and in an age where we are seeing the results of our interactions with the Earth on a grander scale, it is all the more important to understand every way in which we are changing our home. The grander the scale the more complex the interconnections become, so I find the above to be the most useful definition of geoengineering.